The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tom Haws on December 17, 2017, 11:41:56 PM
-
A quick search of the site for the terms "sundial" and "dial" reveals little "dial"ogue on the subject. But this site's model of the sun cannot operate all sundials correctly. I'm including the following images:
1. A working sundial located in Singapore
2. An animation of a generic equatorial sundial with a flat dial.
3. The FES Sun animation.
4. The FES seasons illustration
To make a sundial work the way it works, the Sun must be apparently traversing a constant speed arc across the sky. For a given point on earth, there are various ways this could work, including a) the sun orbiting the earth, b) the earth rotating on its axis, and c) the sun passing overhead at variable speed. But for all points on earth, this cannot work by method c.
The FES Sun animation does not make the sun apparently traverse a constant speed arc across the sky. And of course undulations necessary for the moon phases complicate the problem.
Sundials come in many designs, and sundials have been used for over 3000 years. Consider this sundial with a curved dial located in Singapore, almost at the equator. Also consider the generic equatorial sundial animation. Both required the Sun to traverse the apparent constant speed (tangential or angular) arc.
1. A working sundial located in Singapore
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Sundial%2C_Singapore_Botanic_Gardens.jpg)
2. An animation of a generic equatorial sundial with a flat dial.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Equatorial_sundial_topview.gif)
3. The FES Sun animation.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif)
4. The FES seasons illustration
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a1/Seasons.png)
-
I'm sorry, if you can't see how the flat earth makes the concept of a clock even easier, I'm not going to be able to point that out to you. You even show an animated sun keeping time as it travels around a flat earth's face. The sun even goes the same direction as a clock ... clockwise! North and south hemisphere. On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif)
-
Thanks for your answer, BT.
I'm sorry, if you can't see how the flat earth makes the concept of a clock even easier, I'm not going to be able to point that out to you. You even show an animated sun keeping time as it travels around a flat earth's face. The sun even goes the same direction as a clock ... clockwise! North and south hemisphere. On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.
BT, I don't want to get into a boasting contest with you. But in this case, I better verify before proceeding. How good is your working knowledge of basic trigonometry? Can you answer the following math questions pretty easily?
1. If you are standing 100 meters from a straight road facing straight toward a car that is traveling past you on the road at 10 meters per second, how long will it take for you to turn as you follow the car from 80 degrees left of perpendicular to 70 degrees left of perpendicular?
2. If you are standing 100 meters from a straight road facing straight toward a car that is traveling past you on the road at 10 meters per second, how long will it take for you to turn as you follow the car from 20 degrees left of perpendicular to 10 degrees left of perpendicular?
We really need to make sure to have this discussion among people who can answer those two questions correctly. Real answers. Correct numbers.
-
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I did a degree in Aerospace engineering. I did trigonometry at school when I was 13. I also know how to use a computer.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/
1. 1.9 seconds.
2. I'm not going to dignify this with an answer. Its the same maths.
We really need to make sure to have this discussion among people who can answer those two questions correctly. Real answers. Correct numbers.
I'm not here to prove anything to you. If you want to know where to find answers, I'll help. But I couldn't give two hoots what shape you think earth is.
-
1. 1.9 seconds.
I got 29.2 seconds. Do I need to check my math?
-
I'm sorry, if you can't see how the flat earth makes the concept of a clock even easier, I'm not going to be able to point that out to you. You even show an animated sun keeping time as it travels around a flat earth's face. The sun even goes the same direction as a clock ... clockwise! North and south hemisphere. On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif)
The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour, for all observers, at all points on Earth.
That is a very different notion from the notion of a clock.
Tom Bishop's answer to this is that if an object is far enough away, the change in its angular velocity goes to zero. I see zero evidence for this hypothesis, but at least it's internally consistent.
Do you not see the problem with the flat earth model here?
Unless Tom's special angular velocity idea is a real thing, in the flat earth model when the sun is directly overhead its apparent angular velocity will be much higher than when it is near sunset.
This contradicts the observation that the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.
-
1. 1.9 seconds.
I got 29.2 seconds. Do I need to check my math?
If a road was just 100 metres away from you, does it seem likely it would take 30 seconds to travel such a short distance? I could run the full 100 metres in less than that and be stood on the road before your car traveled just 10 degrees closer from the datum.
The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour, for all observers, at all points on Earth.
That is a very different notion from the notion of a clock.
Very different? A clock is geared 2:1. The hour hand is geared to do two revolutions per day. This is to make the minute hand a thing people can wrap their heads around. 24 doesn't go into 60 very neatly, and a minute is an arbitrary unit of time based solely on picking a number that you can divide in your head easily. A 24 hour clock would be very easy to make, but you'd have to know that when the little hand is pointing at the 17, that is 42.5 minutes past the hour.
Tom Bishop's answer to this is that if an object is far enough away, the change in its angular velocity goes to zero. I see zero evidence for this hypothesis, but at least it's internally consistent.
Do you not see the problem with the flat earth model here?
Unless Tom's special angular velocity idea is a real thing, in the flat earth model when the sun is directly overhead its apparent angular velocity will be much higher than when it is near sunset.
This contradicts the observation that the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.
Well a sundial also contradicts that the sun moves 15 degrees per hour for all observers.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Jl8PdOvML.jpg)
Are those hour lines all 15 degrees? I guess Tom knows what he is talking about and you don't even know how a sun dial works.
-
I get 29.2 seconds as well.
If you're 100 metres from the road and you're facing 80 degrees from perpendicular in order to look straight at a car, that car is:
100 * Tan(80) = 567.12 metres down the road.
If you turn to watch it, then when you're facing 70 degrees from the perpendicular, the car is:
100 * Tan(70) = 274.75 metres down the road.
Since the car is travelling at 10m/s, it will have taken (576.12-274.75)/10 = approx 29.2 seconds to travel that distance.
For the second question, it's Tan(20) and Tan(10). I get approx 1.88 seconds.
Are those hour lines all 15 degrees?
Yes, they are. The spacing of the numerals around the outer edge is irregular because the centre of the rays isn't at the centre of the outer circle, so they are more bunched up where they cross the nearside edge than when they reach the far edge. But the rays themselves are at 15 degree intervals. A quick google image search will show you examples of sundials where the fin is central to the outer circle, and on those you can see the numerals are evenly spaced.
(Edit to substitute 'approx' for tilde, as the font here doesn't seem to display tilde properly and shows it as minus)
-
Sorry, I answered question two instead of one.
Why the hell does this matter anyway?
Yes, they are. The spacing of the numerals around the outer edge is irregular because the centre of the rays isn't at the centre of the outer circle, so they are more bunched up where they cross the nearside edge than when they reach the far edge. But the rays themselves are at 15 degree intervals. A quick google image search will show you examples of sundials where the fin is central to the outer circle, and on those you can see the numerals are evenly spaced.
(Edit to substitute 'approx' for tilde, as the font here doesn't seem to display tilde properly and shows it as minus)
No. A google search will show you ornamental sundials, not functioning ones. The sun does not move 15 degrees from east to west from where ever you view it. You are looking at a sundial. It is showing where the shadow falls. That shadow is not uniformly 15 degrees because the sun doesn't travel uniformly 15 degrees per hour from east to west. It is amazing that you don't even believe your eyes when entrenched in your round earth beliefs.
This is why you can find time lapse images of the sun that do this ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0f/1f/1c/0f1f1c2dd732184c73576738a5939a2d--baku-azerbaijan-september-.jpg)
How's your sundial going to deal with that with uniform lines? Sundials need calibrating for where they are located. It isn't a once size fits all solution. They need to contend with seasons, longitude and latitude (how close you are to a meridian, how far North you might be, etc.)
The sun demonstrably does not travel 15 degrees across the sky per hour as viewed by all observers. That is an irrefutable fact regardless of the shape of the earth. So lets not start from a junk premise that you think will help you prove earth is a ball.
-
Sorry, I answered question two instead of one.
Why the hell does this matter anyway?
Because if the sun is moving at a steady linear velocity above a flat Earth, it cannot be moving at a steady angular velocity. The numbers involved in the moving car show this. It takes 15 times as long to go from 80° to 70° as it does from 20° to 10°. But we know the sun moves at the same angular velocity for all observers every day. This is an impossibility if it has a steady linear velocity, as the example with the car shows.
-
Sorry, I answered question two instead of one.
Why the hell does this matter anyway?
Because if the sun is moving at a steady linear velocity above a flat Earth, it cannot be moving at a steady angular velocity. The numbers involved in the moving car show this. It takes 15 times as long to go from 80° to 70° as it does from 20° to 10°. But we know the sun moves at the same angular velocity for all observers every day. This is an impossibility if it has a steady linear velocity, as the example with the car shows.
I just proved the sun doesn't do that.
-
Sorry, I answered question two instead of one.
Why the hell does this matter anyway?
Because if the sun is moving at a steady linear velocity above a flat Earth, it cannot be moving at a steady angular velocity. The numbers involved in the moving car show this. It takes 15 times as long to go from 80° to 70° as it does from 20° to 10°. But we know the sun moves at the same angular velocity for all observers every day. This is an impossibility if it has a steady linear velocity, as the example with the car shows.
I just proved the sun doesn't do that.
You posted an image with no context (looks like location either far North or far South, taking a picture of the sun on the same day/time once a month for a year based on similar ones I've seen for the moon) and claim it proves the sun doesn't move a constant 15 degrees. If that's a timelapse of the sun over a day then we have a massive problem.
-
No. A google search will show you ornamental sundials, not functioning ones. The sun does not move 15 degrees from east to west from where ever you view it. You are looking at a sundial. It is showing where the shadow falls. That shadow is not uniformly 15 degrees because the sun doesn't travel uniformly 15 degrees per hour from east to west. It is amazing that you don't even believe your eyes when entrenched in your round earth beliefs.
You asked if the lines on the sundial you posted were spaced at 15 degrees. They are. If you picked the wrong image to illustrate your point, that's hardly my fault.
You're correct that sundials must be calibrated for latitude and longitude (the angle of the entire assembly in ones like this:
(http://sundials.org/images/NASS_PhotoList/thumb/Artisan_PublicSundials_Adzema_2010.jpg)
The latitude calibration is the same as for an equatorial telescope mount: the assembly is tilted such that the shadow-casting rod is in line with the polar axis. On the type of sundial shown above, where the shadow is cast upon a circular arc centred on the rod, the hours are marked at regular 15 degree intervals. The same way my motorised telescope's RA axis is very precisely geared to turn it at a constant 15 degrees per hour to track stars (works on the sun, too).
I've no idea what that other composite picture is you posted, but it's not a time-lapse.
-
Sorry, I answered question two instead of one.
Why the hell does this matter anyway?
Yes, they are. The spacing of the numerals around the outer edge is irregular because the centre of the rays isn't at the centre of the outer circle, so they are more bunched up where they cross the nearside edge than when they reach the far edge. But the rays themselves are at 15 degree intervals. A quick google image search will show you examples of sundials where the fin is central to the outer circle, and on those you can see the numerals are evenly spaced.
(Edit to substitute 'approx' for tilde, as the font here doesn't seem to display tilde properly and shows it as minus)
No. A google search will show you ornamental sundials, not functioning ones. The sun does not move 15 degrees from east to west from where ever you view it. You are looking at a sundial. It is showing where the shadow falls. That shadow is not uniformly 15 degrees because the sun doesn't travel uniformly 15 degrees per hour from east to west. It is amazing that you don't even believe your eyes when entrenched in your round earth beliefs.
This is why you can find time lapse images of the sun that do this ...
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0f/1f/1c/0f1f1c2dd732184c73576738a5939a2d--baku-azerbaijan-september-.jpg)
How's your sundial going to deal with that with uniform lines? Sundials need calibrating for where they are located. It isn't a once size fits all solution. They need to contend with seasons, longitude and latitude (how close you are to a meridian, how far North you might be, etc.)
The sun demonstrably does not travel 15 degrees across the sky per hour as viewed by all observers. That is an irrefutable fact regardless of the shape of the earth. So lets not start from a junk premise that you think will help you prove earth is a ball.
I'm afraid the posting of the picture is not directly relevant to the discussion here. I found the details of what the photo actually is :
Sunrise Analemma (with a little extra)
Image Credit & Copyright: Tunç Tezel (TWAN)
Explanation: An analemma is that figure-8 curve that you get when you mark the position of the Sun at the same time each day throughout planet Earth's year. In this case, a composite of 17 individual images taken at 0231 UT on dates between April 2 and September 16 follows half the analemma curve. The scene looks east toward the rising sun and the Caspian sea from the boardwalk in the port city of Baku, Azerbaijan. With the sun nearest the horizon, those dates almost span the period between the 2012 equinoxes on March 20 and September 22. The northern summer Solstice on June 20 corresponds to the top of the figure 8 at the left, when the Sun stood at its northernmost declination. Of course, this year the exposure made on June 6 contained a little something extra. Slightly enhanced, the little black spot on the bright solar disk near the top of the frame is planet Venus, caught in a rare transit during this well-planned sunrise analemma project.
Roger
-
Yes, so the sun taken every single day.
Now tell me. Is it going to cast the same shadow from all those positions? And if it is moving, how does it maintain a constant 15 degrees per hour no matter where you view it from?
Being as the very time of sunrise changes every day, how is that constant no matter where you are?
The declination also changes.
Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.
- Dawn is when the sun comes up.
- Civil dawn is 6 degrees earlier.
- Nautical dawn is 12 degrees before dawn.
- Astronomical dawn is 18 degrees before dawn.
Now, if the sun was moving constantly at 15 degrees per hour through the sky, you'd expect the 3 times between those 4 points in the sky to all be the exact same time between them.
But they aren't
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php
We aren't moving on until you all accept that the statement
the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.
is completely erroneous and can be shown to be so multiple ways.
-
Yes, so the sun taken every single day.
Now tell me. Is it going to cast the same shadow from all those positions? And if it is moving, how does it maintain a constant 15 degrees per hour no matter where you view it from?
Being as the very time of sunrise changes every day, how is that constant no matter where you are?
The declination also changes.
Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.
- Dawn is when the sun comes up.
- Civil dawn is 6 degrees earlier.
- Nautical dawn is 12 degrees before dawn.
- Astronomical dawn is 18 degrees before dawn.
Now, if the sun was moving constantly at 15 degrees per hour through the sky, you'd expect the 3 times between those 4 points in the sky to all be the exact same time between them.
But they aren't
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php
We aren't moving on until you all accept that the statement
the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.
is completely erroneous and can be shown to be so multiple ways.
Meanwhile, we know the shape of the earth, WGS84, and the path of the sun.
-
Yes, so the sun taken every single day.
Now tell me. Is it going to cast the same shadow from all those positions? And if it is moving, how does it maintain a constant 15 degrees per hour no matter where you view it from?
Being as the very time of sunrise changes every day, how is that constant no matter where you are?
The declination also changes.
Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.
- Dawn is when the sun comes up.
- Civil dawn is 6 degrees earlier.
- Nautical dawn is 12 degrees before dawn.
- Astronomical dawn is 18 degrees before dawn.
Now, if the sun was moving constantly at 15 degrees per hour through the sky, you'd expect the 3 times between those 4 points in the sky to all be the exact same time between them.
But they aren't
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php
We aren't moving on until you all accept that the statement
the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.
is completely erroneous and can be shown to be so multiple ways.
It's only erroneous if you are assuming they are speaking about it in relation to the plane of the horizon, and not the plane of the sun. Hence the tilt of the sundial shown in Jocelyn's picture.
-
You can build a sundial and it will show 15 degrees per hour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WrTA1HScI
I'm amazed at this conversation.
Every day the sun moves on a slightly different path through the sky. If you live somewhere where there is winter and summer, the sun is in the sky for more hours during the summer. This is why sunrise and sunset times vary, but if you trace the path of the sun through the sky, it is moving 15 degrees per hour.
You can't look at pictures taken several days apart and make an assumption about how fast the sun moves.
Look at that sundial - you calibrate it for your latitude and it shows the sun moving equal distances per hour.
Look at it.
-
The sun demonstrably does not travel 15 degrees across the sky per hour as viewed by all observers. That is an irrefutable fact regardless of the shape of the earth. So lets not start from a junk premise that you think will help you prove earth is a ball.
No, BT. A 15 degree per hour apparent sun travel is observable reality at all points on earth on all days and times. And a globe-shaped sundial pointed at the north celestial pole works everywhere at all times. See http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/NorthStar/Unit6/unit6_sub2.htm
(http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/NorthStar/Unit6/Graphics/Pic7-8b.JPG)
If you have something that works better, please share.
-
It takes 15 times as long to go from 80° to 70° as it does from 20° to 10°. But we know the sun moves at the same angular velocity for all observers every day. This is an impossibility if it has a steady linear velocity, as the example with the car shows.
Actually, I think JocelynSachs dropped a decimal point. I get 29.2 seconds and 18.7 seconds, with the 80 to 70 degree traversal taking 156% as long as the 20 to 10 degree traversal.
The 85 to 75 degree traversal takes 77 seconds. The 5 left to 5 right traversal takes 8.7 seconds. The first is 9 times as long as the second. If Tom Bishop can wave away the lowest 10 or 15 degrees, it helps a lot.
But the case for the Sun animation is even worse, because at equinox, as animated, the sunset sun from my house in Mesa, Arizona is traveling mostly past, not away from me.
album upload (https://imgbb.com/)
It's at equinox
(https://image.ibb.co/n9fqh6/fe_ani_noon_quito.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Arizona sunset 1
(https://image.ibb.co/i9hgpm/fe_ani_ss_az.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Arizona sunset 2
(https://image.ibb.co/in5O26/fe_ani_ss_az_1.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.
- Dawn is when the sun comes up.
- Civil dawn is 6 degrees earlier.
- Nautical dawn is 12 degrees before dawn.
- Astronomical dawn is 18 degrees before dawn.
Now, if the sun was moving constantly at 15 degrees per hour through the sky, you'd expect the 3 times between those 4 points in the sky to all be the exact same time between them.
You get that it's not going at right angles to the horizon, right?
The sun is not moving straight up from the horizon. It moves at an angle depending on your latitude and the time of year.
As a pilot you understand headwind and crosswind components. The sun is moving at 15 degrees per hour (wind speed). The speed that the sun crosses the horizon at is the headwind component, and the angle from runway heading is your latitude + some correction for the season if not on an equinox.
On the equinox, the angle the sun is making is just your latitude. You take the cosine of the angle, multiply by the wind speed, and that is your headwind component. At the equator, it crosses the horizon at 15 degrees per hour. At 45 degrees latitude, it's crossing at about 2/3 that rate. At 60 degrees latitude, it's crossing at half that rate.
-
The wind doesn't effect the sun. This is a stupid analogy.
You are willfully ignoring the fact that the sun is not travelling a uniform 15 degrees per hour through the sky as we observe it. And that is evidenced by looking at 6 degree intervals and seeing they are not the same time frame apart.
Ergo we observe the sun climbing into the sky, gathering pace (crossing more degrees per hour) and then slowing down again at sunset. Its right there. Check the numbers with any weather station you like, any place in the world you like, on any day you like. The sun is not 'moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.'.
-
Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.
BT, I don't really like to do this. I do not doubt that you are a mature person with great talents. And I am grateful that you are willing to participate. It's better than dead silence, I suppose. But there is a serious problem with your contributions to this conversation. You are saying a lot of embarrassing things. Before continuing to contribute in discussions with uncommonly clear thinkers like JocelynSachs, douglips, and CuriousSquirrel, please take honest self-inventory of your ability to understand what they are saying and to talk on their level.
- Please be honest about your ability to do math
- Please be honest about your ability to do physics
- Please be honest about your willingess and ability make and record rigorous observations
It's not a good sign that you do not grasp the importance of the difference between the sun appearing to orbit the earth and the sun being asserted to glide above the earth. And it's not a good sign that you are not able to graciously admit your math mistake. If you had admitted it and conceded the point, we would be more inclined to listen to you. A bit of humility would go a long way.
-
The wind doesn't effect the sun. This is a stupid analogy.
It is not objectively a stupid analogy. And since you know it's an analogy, you know it's immaterial that "the wind doesn't affect the sun". The fact that you don't like what douglips is saying doesn't make him wrong. His analogy was a gracious attempt to help you understand the problem. If in fact you understand the problem very well and need no help, simply demonstrate your understanding a little better.
You are willfully ignoring the fact that the sun is not travelling a uniform 15 degrees per hour through the sky as we observe it.
We are not ignoring the fact that we have no idea what the sun is really doing. We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations. This is not in dispute. Your next-door neighbors can corroborate it. This is not a NASA trick. Take the time to make your own sundial and record your observations.
And that is evidenced by looking at 6 degree intervals and seeing they are not the same time frame apart.
Sorry. This is not likely to be true. But I need a bit more clarity about your exact assertion. If you want, I will be happy to make any observations about this you suggest. I am self-employed and available at all hours of the day and night to record sun/moon/star angles at my house. Just give me precise instructions so I can repeat your observations.
-
It takes 15 times as long to go from 80° to 70° as it does from 20° to 10°. But we know the sun moves at the same angular velocity for all observers every day. This is an impossibility if it has a steady linear velocity, as the example with the car shows.
Actually, I think JocelynSachs dropped a decimal point. I get 29.2 seconds and 18.7 seconds, with the 80 to 70 degree traversal taking 156% as long as the 20 to 10 degree traversal.
The 85 to 75 degree traversal takes 77 seconds. The 5 left to 5 right traversal takes 8.7 seconds. The first is 9 times as long as the second. If Tom Bishop can wave away the lowest 10 or 15 degrees, it helps a lot.
But the case for the Sun animation is even worse, because at equinox, as animated, the sunset sun from my house in Mesa, Arizona is traveling mostly past, not away from me.
(Snipped for brevity)
Ah, they had both agreed upon that point, so I thought it safe to assume without running the numbers myself, thanks Tom. A difference that significant is STILL definitely large enough everyone should be long aware of it though.
-
On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.
I can't tell if you are serious here or this is an example of that great British wit?
-
We are not ignoring the fact that we have no idea what the sun is really doing. We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations. This is not in dispute. Your next-door neighbors can corroborate it. This is not a NASA trick. Take the time to make your own sundial and record your observations.
Why is this so hard for you? Why do you keep asking about my maths and physics when you struggle with plain English?
The sun does not cross the sky uniformly at 15 degrees per hour.
Let that sink in. Now fully understand that before you try to wrap your head around the incredibly difficult proof of that assertation.
The sun's speed changes through out the day from the perspective of the individual observer. Wait for it. Wait for it. You can verify this by looking at sunrise and sunset times and the times it takes the sun each day to travel through 6 degrees.
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php
so in the case of London today ...
Sunset: 15:52:34
Dusk - civil twilight ends 16:32:42
Nautical twilight ends 17:15:52
Astronomical twilight ends 17:56:40
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/twiligh-phases.png?4)
Please note, the sun doesn't do each 6 degrees in the same time period. It isn't linear. Ergo, the sun isn't doing 15 degrees per minute. In fact it took almost 1 hour and 43 minutes for the sun to do 15 degrees over London at sunset today. It took, two hours, 4 minutes and 6 seconds to pass 18 degrees.
This is just simple addition and subtraction. I'm not trying to bamboozle you with numbers here.
-
On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.
I can't tell if you are serious here or this is an example of that great British wit?
The former. Southern hemisphere clocks are supposed to go the other way on a round earth.
Bolivia tried to swap their clocks around as they were sick of Northern-hemisphere hegemony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28013157
How are you going to argue earth is round, when I know more about round earth theory than you? ;)
-
We are not ignoring the fact that we have no idea what the sun is really doing. We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations. This is not in dispute. Your next-door neighbors can corroborate it. This is not a NASA trick. Take the time to make your own sundial and record your observations.
Why is this so hard for you? Why do you keep asking about my maths and physics when you struggle with plain English?
The sun does not cross the sky uniformly at 15 degrees per hour.
Let that sink in. Now fully understand that before you try to wrap your head around the incredibly difficult proof of that assertation.
The sun's speed changes through out the day from the perspective of the individual observer. Wait for it. Wait for it. You can verify this by looking at sunrise and sunset times and the times it takes the sun each day to travel through 6 degrees.
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php
so in the case of London today ...
Sunset: 15:52:34
Dusk - civil twilight ends 16:32:42
Nautical twilight ends 17:15:52
Astronomical twilight ends 17:56:40
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/twiligh-phases.png?4)
Please note, the sun doesn't do each 6 degrees in the same time period. It isn't linear. Ergo, the sun isn't doing 15 degrees per minute. In fact it took almost 1 hour and 43 minutes for the sun to do 15 degrees over London at sunset today. It took, two hours, 4 minutes and 6 seconds to pass 18 degrees.
This is just simple addition and subtraction. I'm not trying to bamboozle you with numbers here.
Once again, you're confusing the planes of motion being discussed. If you can't figure out the difference between the one you keep mentioning and the one where the sun is moving 15 degrees an hour, I'm not sure how to help you.
Look at your numbers again though. Even those show it progresses at a fairly standard rate along that axis of motion. ~40 minutes of each twilight period. This should not be the case for a flat Earth. Each section should take not insignificantly longer than the one before it when setting.
-
Once again, you're confusing the planes of motion being discussed. If you can't figure out the difference between the one you keep mentioning and the one where the sun is moving 15 degrees an hour, I'm not sure how to help you.
I'm not confusing anything. I was told by you lot
the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.
And then told
We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations.
Now having shown above an OBSERVATION that, disproves that using one's eyes and the ability to time something, how have people been able to OBSERVE this since the beginning of recorded observations? You are using a theory - the sun travels at a uniform speed 360 degrees, divide that by 24 and 15 degrees per hour. These assumptions are based on a round earth. I'm showing you there is no such observation, it is round earth theory, and telling you with real world proofs that the sun's speed isn't uniform over the sky as we all observe every day.
Where is your real world proof that the sun's speed is uniform?
-
Look at your numbers again though. Even those show it progresses at a fairly standard rate along that axis of motion. ~40 minutes of each twilight period. This should not be the case for a flat Earth. Each section should take not insignificantly longer than the one before it when setting.
On a flat earth it would. We assume the sun to be relatively close and have a dramatic slant angle to contend with, stretching out the time it takes for the sun to travel through arc radians of the sky.
You are stuck with the Galilean bastardization that says the sun is so far away as to make that change negligible. To you the sun is always 93 million miles away. To us, it has to get some 40,000km away at its furthest and be just 3000 miles overhead at its shortest. We aren't the ones with an inconsistency here. We are observing what we expect for a flat earth. You are expecting 15 degrees per hour and you aren't getting it.
-
- Sunrise is when the sun comes up.
- Civil dawn twilight is 6 degrees earlier.
A. Please provide a reference for this assertion.
B. Please clarify whether you mean that i) 6 degrees below the horizon is civil dawn twilight or that ii) 6 degrees of rotation before dawn is civil dawn twilight.
If i), I point out that depending on the sun's apparent path for the day and location, the 6 degrees below the horizon may comprise many more degrees of the sun's path.
If ii), I dispute your assertion.
Anyway, once the sun rises, it traverses 15 degrees every hour, and the length of the day is directly proportional to the number of degrees between sunrise and sunset on that day at that location.
-
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.
-
You are expecting 15 degrees per hour and you aren't getting it.
That's where you are wrong and thousands of years of sundials disagree with you. Give us a clear and repeatable experiment to run at our houses to falsify our assertion or yours.
-
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.
It's not hard, but you are still missing that the sun does not rise vertically. It often and in many places traverses the 6 twilight degrees on a slant that comprises more than 6 degrees of its own path. How do you presume to school us about something that seems to be so hard for you to grasp?
-
Hang on are we missing something obvious here.
I stand still facing a road that crosses my path left to right and is perfectly straight.
A car travels along it left to right at a uniform speed of 70mph.
I can see the car from 2 miles either side.
Surely the car will appear to move quicker when it is closer to me (directly in front if me it will whizz past)
Does this not show that an object moving at a uniform speed can appear to speed up and slow down?
-
You are expecting 15 degrees per hour and you aren't getting it.
That's where you are wrong and thousands of years of sundials disagree with you. Give us a clear and repeatable experiment to run at our houses to falsify our assertion or yours.
I already showed you, sundials are not 15 degrees per hour marker.
Look at this bad boy.
(https://cdn.instructables.com/FKF/5949/GRFNE821/FKF5949GRFNE821.LARGE.jpg)
Are you going to tell me the 1 and 12 are the same distance apart as the 8 and 9? That is not 15 degree increments. That thing is accounting for slant angles.
Hang on are we missing something obvious here.
I stand still facing a road that crosses my path left to right and is perfectly straight.
A car travels along it left to right at a uniform speed of 70mph.
I can see the car from 2 miles either side.
Surely the car will appear to move quicker when it is closer to me (directly in front if me it will whizz past)
Does this not show that an object moving at a uniform speed can appear to speed up and slow down?
On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.
Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.
I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.
-
How are you going to argue earth is round, when I know more about round earth theory than you? ;)
Haha I have never claimed to know anything dude ;) that's why I love being here because it fills in the knowledge I declined during my mandatory education.
My stance has always been from a point of ignorance and whilst that is embarrassing I take the hit as it allows me to learn.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers (although why is a cucumber a penguins IS a fuc***in stupid question but you get my point)
The trouble is that the RE geeks here provide better answers, often FE answers are nonexistent, rude or nonsense whilst FE provide continuous explanation. They don't just say- go read Hawkings etc
You are however providing hope BT that there is a FE prepared to explain using science (rather than biblical or magic perspective) so I thank you for that!
DA
-
How are you going to argue earth is round, when I know more about round earth theory than you? ;)
Haha I have never claimed to know anything dude ;) that's why I love being here because it fills in the knowledge I declined during my mandatory education.
My stance has always been from a point of ignorance and whilst that is embarrassing I take the hit as it allows me to learn.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers (although why is a cucumber a penguins IS a fuc***in stupid question but you get my point)
The trouble is that the RE geeks here provide better answers, often FE answers are nonexistent, rude or nonsense whilst FE provide continuous explanation. They don't just say- go read Hawkings etc
You are however providing hope BT that there is a FE prepared to explain using science (rather than biblical or magic perspective) so I thank you for that!
DA
I'm happy to play dumb as round earthers refuse to provide any evidence. They'll ask me for links and images all day and calculations and references. They tend to be lazy sods and rarely want to put their own necks on the line. Once I've eeked a bit out, then I'll use their assumptions against them. I've been a member of the flat earth society for about 8 years I think, maybe 9 and have well over 40,000 posts on these forums. I've had every conversation, I know your next objection before you post it and know my response. And I know all kinds of little nuggets like southern hemisphere clocks going backwards. Got to know all your RET stuff in case you surprise me with it.
-
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.
Get two nice straight garden canes and a sunny day.
Push one garden cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow (pointing at the sun)
Wait 1 hour.
Push the second cane into the soil such that it crosses the other one and has no visible shadow (pointing at the sun)
Measure the angle between the canes. It will be 15 degrees. If you prefer, wait two hours - it'll be 30 degrees. Or three hours - it'll be 45 degrees. It doesn't matter where you are on earth, and so long as the sun is visible and not covered with clouds at both ends of the experiment, it doesn't matter when you do it either.
The timings you are talking about, with the aid of your excellent diagram, are degrees measured vertically above the horizon, not the angle across the sky the sun appears to travel during a given time.
As for the sundial: you are quite correct that angled fins distort the path of the shadow. As I mentioned earlier: the other type of sundial, which is angled to align with the polar axis and thus present an undistorted shadow projection, has the hours spaced 15 degrees apart.
-
On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.
Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.
I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.
BT you got a point!
-
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.
Get two nice straight garden canes and a sunny day.
Push one garden cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow (pointing at the sun)
Wait 1 hour.
Push the second cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow.
Measure the angle between the canes. It will be 15 degrees. If you prefer, wait two hours - it'll be 30 degrees. Or three hours - it'll be 45 degrees. It doesn't matter where you are on earth, and so long as the sun is shining at both ends of the experiment, it doesn't matter when you do it either.
The timings you are talking about, with the aid of your excellent diagram, are degrees measured vertically above the horizon, not the angle across the sky the sun appears to travel during a given time.
As for the sundial: you are quite correct that angled fins distort the path of the shadow. As I mentioned earlier: the other type of sundial, which is angled to align with the polar axis, has the hours spaced 15 degrees apart.
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
-
Incorrect. You are creating a strawman to attack. The sundial you just showed is not looking at the axis the sun moves upon like the one Jocelyn linked earlier does. Thus the shadow cast upon it indeed does not move 15 degrees per hour. Let's go back and take a look at this one again.
http://sundials.org/images/NASS_PhotoList/thumb/Artisan_PublicSundials_Adzema_2010.jpg
A larger image and some information on them. http://www.robertadzema.com/sundials.html
Those hour markers sure seem equally spaced to me for this one, which is properly placed to match the sun's plane as it moves through the sky. The sun will not move at 15° through the sky, when measured along a plane 90° from the horizon plane. It WILL move 15° an hour when measured upon the plane of the suns path that follows it. At the equator on the equinox is the location where this will happen twice every year, and also match up with the plane 90° to the plane of the horizon. Boy I hope that made sense this time.
What you are doing is using the incorrect 'wall' to measure against, and presenting it as though it's what's being discussed with 15° an hour.
EDIT: Hmm, I appear to have quoted the wrong thing here. Dropping the quote, the information still pertains to earlier misinformation.
-
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
(http://sundials.org/images/NASS_PhotoList/thumb/Artisan_PublicSundials_Adzema_2010.jpg)
Nope.
-
On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.
Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.
I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.
BT you got a point!
It's a shame his point only works if you live at one of the poles.
-
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
(http://sundials.org/images/NASS_PhotoList/thumb/Artisan_PublicSundials_Adzema_2010.jpg)
Nope.
That isn't aligned with the polar axis, is it? That is aligned perpendicular to the polar axis. If that was a dish at that angle and not a curve, the sun would be under the dial. That is why your example is called an equatorial dial. The examples we were discussing are horizontal dials and they are aligned with the horizon. Polar dials tend to be bars on rectangular plates.
-
On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.
Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.
I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.
BT you got a point!
It's a shame his point only works if you live at one of the poles.
Again, it only works for ROUND earth at the poles. FET covers all the bases. It is the superior theory.
(http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/pole/dome/life/sun/sunseriesagain.jpg)
-
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
(http://sundials.org/images/NASS_PhotoList/thumb/Artisan_PublicSundials_Adzema_2010.jpg)
Nope.
That isn't aligned with the polar axis, is it?
[/quote]
The bit I was talking about is.
-
On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.
Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.
I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.
BT you got a point!
It's a shame his point only works if you live at one of the poles.
Again, it only works for ROUND earth at the poles. FET covers all the bases. It is the superior theory.
(http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/pole/dome/life/sun/sunseriesagain.jpg)
The car moving at an equal angular speed no matter where it is on the track, only works when watching the car from the center. Move anywhere else, and the car is no longer moving at an equal angular velocity during it's whole trip. Which the sun does, as you've shown yourself with the twilight information, and the sundial posted by both myself and Jocelyn shows. I also have no idea what your image is attempting to show without context (once again).
As well when viewed from outside of the track, you would see something VERY different to what is observed in the Southern hemisphere.
-
And how do you move position and get any further from the centre, when the sun is 93 million miles away? No matter where you are, you are always in the centre on a round earth. You're just proving the earth to be flat with a nearby sun.
-
And how do you move position and get any further from the centre, when the sun is 93 million miles away? No matter where you are, you are always in the centre on a round earth.
Exactly. Which is why the sun always appears to travel an angle of 15 degrees per hour. No matter where you are. No idea why Curious Squirrel is trying to prove the earth is flat all of a sudden but he's doing a terrible job of it.
-
And how do you move position and get any further from the centre, when the sun is 93 million miles away? No matter where you are, you are always in the centre on a round earth.
Exactly. Which is why the sun always appears to travel an angle of 15 degrees per hour. No matter where you are. No idea why Curious Squirrel is trying to prove the earth is flat all of a sudden but he's doing a terrible job of it.
Not at all, maybe I need to be more clear. Hmmm. The counterpoint with his 'track' idea is that as soon as you move any closer to the 'car'/sun the movement of it is no longer going to be an even angular speed like we see in the real world. With a flat Earth and a close sun you can move to that sort of distance. You can go OUTSIDE the track, and completely break the illusion of a steady angular speed.
-
No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.
Get two nice straight garden canes and a sunny day.
Push one garden cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow (pointing at the sun)
Wait 1 hour.
Push the second cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow.
Measure the angle between the canes. It will be 15 degrees. If you prefer, wait two hours - it'll be 30 degrees. Or three hours - it'll be 45 degrees. It doesn't matter where you are on earth, and so long as the sun is shining at both ends of the experiment, it doesn't matter when you do it either.
The timings you are talking about, with the aid of your excellent diagram, are degrees measured vertically above the horizon, not the angle across the sky the sun appears to travel during a given time.
As for the sundial: you are quite correct that angled fins distort the path of the shadow. As I mentioned earlier: the other type of sundial, which is angled to align with the polar axis, has the hours spaced 15 degrees apart.
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS, THE SHADOW IS ON THE BOTTOM SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-_tm_zIfE
You claim to be a pilot, you claim to have studied trigonometry in middle school, and yet you can't grasp that if the sun or you are crossing a distance at an angle that the sun or you will go slower than if you are crossing it straight.
THE SUN IS NOT GOING STRAIGHT ACROSS THE HORIZON FOR ALMOST ANY OBSERVER.
Here's a video of the sun moving 15 degrees an hour and never crossing the horizon. How does that work?
https://youtu.be/Zc-WlTaG7WY?t=31s
-
Read this section of the wikipedia page on twilight and see if you can wrap your head around the fact that THE SUN DOES NOT TRAVEL STRAIGHT ACROSS THE HORIZON IN MOST CASES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight#Duration
At Greenwich, England (51.5°N), the duration of civil twilight will vary from 33 minutes to 48 minutes, depending on the time of year. At the equator, conditions can go from day to night in as little as 20–25 minutes. This is true because at low latitudes the sun's apparent movement is perpendicular to the observer's horizon. But at the poles, civil twilight can be as long as 2–3 weeks. In the Arctic and Antarctic regions, twilight (if there is any) can last for several hours. There is no astronomical twilight at the poles near the winter solstice (for about 74 days at the North Pole and about 80 days at the South Pole). As one gets closer to the Arctic and Antarctic circles, the sun's disk moves toward the observer's horizon at a lower angle. The observer's earthly location will pass through the various twilight zones less directly, taking more time.
-
Read this section of the wikipedia page on twilight and see if you can wrap your head around the fact that THE SUN DOES NOT TRAVEL STRAIGHT ACROSS THE HORIZON IN MOST CASES:
Either my troll detector is broken, or yours is :)
-
'You claim to be a pilot, you claim to have studied trigonometry in middle school,'
I think you missed out the degree in Aerospace Engineering!
Roger
-
BT you got a point!
BT has no point by any stretch, and I cannot understand how you are so easily taken in by him unless it is the sheer strength of his bluster, of which there is no short supply.
In the above he has done a full circle, defended the Round Earth position, and cried victory. It is just that nonsensical and absurd. See below:
On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe.
...which is contrary to the observed steady 15 degrees per hour, as we keep reminding you.
The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.
Exactly! Glad to have you see the light!
Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.
Exactly! As observed for thousands of years. Maybe you really do understand!
I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.
Sure. If the sun did not really apparently march across the sky at 15 degrees per hour, we would be in doubt. But since it does, your sun animation (https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/270px-SunAnimation.gif) cannot work.
At least it appears we all agree on one thing: FE and RE stand or fall on whether the sun marches at 15 degrees per hour. Maybe we should proceed to agree on an experiment. I like the JocelynSachs experiment.
-
If on around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.
(http://sundials.org/images/NASS_PhotoList/thumb/Artisan_PublicSundials_Adzema_2010.jpg)
Nope.
That isn't aligned with the polar axis, is it? That is aligned perpendicular to the polar axis. If that was a dish at that angle and not a curve, the sun would be under the dial. That is why your example is called an equatorial dial. The examples we were discussing are horizontal dials and they are aligned with the horizon. Polar dials tend to be bars on rectangular plates.
BT and everybody else, maybe we should agree to talk around a universal sundial with a correct orientation. Talking around incorrect sundials is pointless. A universal sundial is a globe with its pole pointed at the celestial pole. It isn't aligned with the earth's axis. See this image again:
(http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/NorthStar/Unit6/Graphics/Pic7-8b.JPG)
-
So you don't want to use a flat sundial that represents a flat earth. You want to use a globe shaped sundial representing a globe shaped earth. Can we load the deck in your favour any more do you think?
-
So you don't want to use a flat sundial that represents a flat earth. You want to use a globe shaped sundial representing a globe shaped earth. Can we load the deck in your favour any more do you think?
We want to use the sundial that works best. It happens to be a globe. But yes, the deck is also completely in our favor. Sorry! You lose!
-
So you don't want to use a flat sundial that represents a flat earth. You want to use a globe shaped sundial representing a globe shaped earth. Can we load the deck in your favour any more do you think?
We want to use the sundial that works best. It happens to be a globe. But yes, the deck is also completely in our favor. Sorry! You lose!
Well it turns out flat sundials work too. What we have here is round earther's trying to cheat a win so as they can maintain their normalisation bias. Basically more of the blue pill.
-
So you don't want to use a flat sundial that represents a flat earth. You want to use a globe shaped sundial representing a globe shaped earth. Can we load the deck in your favour any more do you think?
We want to use the sundial that works best. It happens to be a globe. But yes, the deck is also completely in our favor. Sorry! You lose!
Well it turns out flat sundials work too. What we have here is round earther's trying to cheat a win so as they can maintain their normalisation bias. Basically more of the blue pill.
Not all flat sundials work everywhere. The only one that works everywhere is based on a globe. Sawwwy.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
-
I'm sorry, if you can't see how the flat earth makes the concept of a clock even easier, I'm not going to be able to point that out to you. You even show an animated sun keeping time as it travels around a flat earth's face. The sun even goes the same direction as a clock ... clockwise! North and south hemisphere. On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif)
So, I know I'm digging back into this thread a fair bit, but I just had a thought, verified it, and would like to present it quick. Southern hemisphere sundials DO go backwards.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Sundial_in_Supreme_Court_Gardens%2C_Perth.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Sundial_in_Supreme_Court_Gardens%2C_Perth.jpg)
This image is large and it feels smarter to link directly to it instead of putting it inline, so that people can see it at full size with no issues. Make sure to zoom in and look at the numbers going in the other direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Sundials_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Sundials_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere)
So the basis of your entire objection is faulty.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread. And they aren't calibrated with a globe earth. They are aligned with the path of the sun from your position on earth. An important distinction.
So, I know I'm digging back into this thread a fair bit, but I just had a thought, verified it, and would like to present it quick. Southern hemisphere sundials DO go backwards.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Sundial_in_Supreme_Court_Gardens%2C_Perth.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Sundial_in_Supreme_Court_Gardens%2C_Perth.jpg)
This image is large and it feels smarter to link directly to it instead of putting it inline, so that people can see it at full size with no issues. Make sure to zoom in and look at the numbers going in the other direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Sundials_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Sundials_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere)
So the basis of your entire objection is faulty.
I told you that. My point was that the Southern hemisphere doesn't use clocks that go backwards as you'd expect on a round earth for precisely that reason.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
-
So, I know I'm digging back into this thread a fair bit, but I just had a thought, verified it, and would like to present it quick. Southern hemisphere sundials DO go backwards.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Sundial_in_Supreme_Court_Gardens%2C_Perth.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Sundial_in_Supreme_Court_Gardens%2C_Perth.jpg)
This image is large and it feels smarter to link directly to it instead of putting it inline, so that people can see it at full size with no issues. Make sure to zoom in and look at the numbers going in the other direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Sundials_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial#Sundials_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere)
So the basis of your entire objection is faulty.
I told you that. My point was that the Southern hemisphere doesn't use clocks that go backwards as you'd expect on a round earth for precisely that reason.
Sorry, what? Their clocks not going the other direction has a bearing on this for what reason at this point in time, when we're talking about sundials? I'm reasonably certain (and a very brief wiki look appears to confirm my suspicions) that modern faced clocks didn't become prominent until after a fair bit of intermingling between North and South hemisphere's. So why would they have developed modern looking clocks that looked different? Presuming I'm grasping your statement correctly.
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
'The ancients'? We have no evidence of a polar-axis, even-hour sundial prior to nearly the 1400's. That's not exactly 'ancient' by my count.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
'The ancients'? We have no evidence of a polar-axis, even-hour sundial prior to nearly the 1400's. That's not exactly 'ancient' by my count.
You are embarressing yourself again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Ancient_sundials
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
No but they also weren’t traveling all over the world were they? Are you disputing that the gnomon on a sundial must be adjusted for latitude? Are you aware that the eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit cause predictable errors in sundials based on a heliocentric model of the solar system and General Relativity?
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
No but they also weren’t traveling all over the world were they? Are you disputing that the gnomon on a sundial must be adjusted for latitude? Are you aware that the eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit cause predictable errors in sundials based on a heliocentric model of the solar system and General Relativity?
I already said, flat sundials need to be calibrated, just as globe ones do. What point are you trying to make?
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
No but they also weren’t traveling all over the world were they? Are you disputing that the gnomon on a sundial must be adjusted for latitude? Are you aware that the eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit cause predictable errors in sundials based on a heliocentric model of the solar system and General Relativity?
I already said, flat sundials need to be calibrated, just as globe ones do. What point are you trying to make?
That sundials work based on the Earth being a globe, as I have explicitly stated.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
No but they also weren’t traveling all over the world were they? Are you disputing that the gnomon on a sundial must be adjusted for latitude? Are you aware that the eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit cause predictable errors in sundials based on a heliocentric model of the solar system and General Relativity?
I already said, flat sundials need to be calibrated, just as globe ones do. What point are you trying to make?
That sundials work based on the Earth being a globe, as I have explicitly stated.
Prove it.
-
Well it turns out flat sundials work too. What we have here is round earther's trying to cheat a win so as they can maintain their normalisation bias. Basically more of the blue pill.
I will use a flat "sundial" today at my house and run the JocelynSachs experiment. Will you?
(https://preview.ibb.co/cSEdLR/20171220_081419.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kvkUS6)
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
'The ancients'? We have no evidence of a polar-axis, even-hour sundial prior to nearly the 1400's. That's not exactly 'ancient' by my count.
You are embarressing yourself again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Ancient_sundials
You really are when you don't bother to actually *read* what I said. Bolded the relevant bits in the earlier post and helpfully linked to what I'm talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Modern_dialing
-
Well it turns out flat sundials work too. What we have here is round earther's trying to cheat a win so as they can maintain their normalisation bias. Basically more of the blue pill.
I will use a flat "sundial" today at my house and run the JocelynSachs experiment. Will you?
(https://preview.ibb.co/cSEdLR/20171220_081419.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kvkUS6)
No. https://darksky.net/details/51.5085,-0.1257/2017-12-20/us12/en
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
'The ancients'? We have no evidence of a polar-axis, even-hour sundial prior to nearly the 1400's. That's not exactly 'ancient' by my count.
You are embarressing yourself again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Ancient_sundials
You really are when you don't bother to actually *read* what I said. Bolded the relevant bits in the earlier post and helpfully linked to what I'm talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Modern_dialing
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again. The thing about rainbows is every time you get closer to them, they move away from you. Stop with your rainbow reasoning.
-
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again.
Polar axis sundials were brought in specifically to rebut your claims about the hourly 15o movement of the sun.
The thing about rainbows is every time you get closer to them, they move away from you. Stop with your rainbow reasoning.
Physician heal thyself.
-
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
'The ancients'? We have no evidence of a polar-axis, even-hour sundial prior to nearly the 1400's. That's not exactly 'ancient' by my count.
You are embarressing yourself again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Ancient_sundials
You really are when you don't bother to actually *read* what I said. Bolded the relevant bits in the earlier post and helpfully linked to what I'm talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Modern_dialing
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again. The thing about rainbows is every time you get closer to them, they move away from you. Stop with your rainbow reasoning.
Oh I've read the whole thing. You were discussing there how sundials needed to be adjusted based on location/coordinates. Which is ONLY true of polar axis, even hour sundials. You made a reference to if 'the ancients' were using equations relating to the movement of the sun/earth system. I was pointing out that 'the ancients' didn't use sundials that required such information, and they were in fact not in use until nearly 1400. Not sure how that's 'moving the goalposts' but ok.
-
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again.
Polar axis sundials were brought in specifically to rebut your claims about the hourly 15o movement of the sun.
We have poles on a flat earth to. All you are doing is aligning north south and angling based on your latitude (sun slant from the equator). Flat earth has no issue with sundials like this, any more than round earth has an issue with flat sundials. It is just reverse two-way geometry.
Flat ones absolutely work everywhere. They need calibrating, but so do the globe ones. Where on earth would a flat sundial not work please?
I have to apologize, I was mistaken. All flat sundials work everywhere, but only if you adjust them for the correct coordinates. Coordinates that are based on the Earth being a globe. My mistake, but it doesn't really help you does it?
Well it doesn't discredit the earth as flat either ... the point of this thread.
To get a flat sundial to work, it must be oriented to reflect its position in a heliocentric solar system using globe based coordinates.
Which globe based co-ordinates? Tell me, were the ancients using WGS 84?
'The ancients'? We have no evidence of a polar-axis, even-hour sundial prior to nearly the 1400's. That's not exactly 'ancient' by my count.
You are embarressing yourself again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Ancient_sundials
You really are when you don't bother to actually *read* what I said. Bolded the relevant bits in the earlier post and helpfully linked to what I'm talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sundials#Modern_dialing
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again. The thing about rainbows is every time you get closer to them, they move away from you. Stop with your rainbow reasoning.
Oh I've read the whole thing. You were discussing there how sundials needed to be adjusted based on location/coordinates. Which is ONLY true of polar axis, even hour sundials. You made a reference to if 'the ancients' were using equations relating to the movement of the sun/earth system. I was pointing out that 'the ancients' didn't use sundials that required such information, and they were in fact not in use until nearly 1400. Not sure how that's 'moving the goalposts' but ok.
Apology accepted.
-
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again.
Polar axis sundials were brought in specifically to rebut your claims about the hourly 15o movement of the sun.
We have poles on a flat earth to. All you are doing is aligning north south and angling based on your latitude (sun slant from the equator). Flat earth has no issue with sundials like this, any more than round earth has an issue with flat sundials. It is just reverse two-way geometry.
As has been simply demonstrated elsewhere, latitude doesn't work on a FE. Either the latitude lines change distance from one another or the sun's altitude changes radically based on your latitude. Both of these cases are easily shown not to be the case by simple observation and simple logic.
-
If you had read the thread and not jumped in, you'd have realised we were specifically talking about FLAT sundials. Then you interrupted moving the goal posts again.
Polar axis sundials were brought in specifically to rebut your claims about the hourly 15o movement of the sun.
We have poles on a flat earth to. All you are doing is aligning north south and angling based on your latitude (sun slant from the equator). Flat earth has no issue with sundials like this, any more than round earth has an issue with flat sundials. It is just reverse two-way geometry.
As has been simply demonstrated elsewhere, latitude doesn't work on a FE. Either the latitude lines change distance from one another or the sun's altitude changes radically based on your latitude. Both of these cases are easily shown not to be the case by simple observation and simple logic.
Latitude does work on a flat earth. Please look at the map in our FAQ. If you want to make another thread about latitude, please do so. This one is about sundials and belongs to flat earth now.
-
Apology accepted.
An odd way to apologize for misreading another statement's and intent, but I'll take what I can get.
Reminder, looking for hard proof for the sun moving at 15° degrees an hour along the solar ecliptic, different than the vertical ecliptic mentioned/referenced by Thork earlier in the thread. Having a small touch of trouble as he doesn't seem ready to accept the special build sundial posted by Jocelyn.
-
Latitude does work on a flat earth. Please look at the map in our FAQ.
Incorrect. Either the sun's altitude fluctuates based on your latitude, which is nonsensical, or the distance between latitude lines varies which is does not agree with real life navigation.
If you want to make another thread about latitude, please do so. This one is about sundials and belongs to flat earth now.
Seeing as latitude is integral to the accuracy of many types of sundials, it is entirely appropriate to bring up.
-
If you want to make another thread about latitude, please do so. This one is about sundials and belongs to flat earth now.
Seeing as latitude is integral to the accuracy of many types of sundials, it is entirely appropriate to bring up.
To bring it up yes, to want to discuss how latitude works on a flat earth is another topic. You have to accept that is does work in this thread so we can work on sundials. If you wish to abandon sundials as you believe the real proof lies in latitude, that's a separate thread.
Latitude does work on a flat earth. Please look at the map in our FAQ.
Incorrect. Either the sun's altitude fluctuates based on your latitude, which is nonsensical, or the distance between latitude lines varies which is does not agree with real life navigation.
Pretty sure the sun's altitude (read declination) does fluctuate depending on your latitude. The distance between lines of latitude do not vary on a flat earth. Again I refer you to the FAQ map and a new thread about latitude.
Apology accepted.
An odd way to apologize for misreading another statement's and intent, but I'll take what I can get.
Reminder, looking for hard proof for the sun moving at 15° degrees an hour along the solar ecliptic, different than the vertical ecliptic mentioned/referenced by Thork earlier in the thread. Having a small touch of trouble as he doesn't seem ready to accept the special build sundial posted by Jocelyn.
I was the one looking for hard proof. The real world times between the various degrees of twilight blew that round earth assumption apart. I was left wanting though. :'(
-
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
-
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.
-
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.
Can you just answer the question? Do you agree with the following (you seem to agree, but you are also hedging)?
1. Sun must apparently advance constantly at 15 degrees per hour everywhere and always on a Round Earth.
2. Sun cannot apparently advance constantly at 15 degrees per hour everywhere and always on a Flat Earth.
-
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.
Can you just answer the question? Do you agree with the following (you seem to agree, but you are also hedging)?
1. Sun must apparently advance constantly at 15 degrees per hour everywhere and always on a Round Earth.
2. Sun cannot apparently advance constantly at 15 degrees per hour everywhere and always on a Flat Earth.
1. 15 degrees around a circle from the north pole - yes. Not 15 degrees across the sky. One is lateral, the other has components of lateral and vertical. Azimuth if you like.
2. It certainly will be 15 degrees at the north pole where the sun's distance is always equal from you on a flat earth. Not anywhere else. This is the problem round earth has. the sun should always be 93 million miles from you on a round earth. You can't claim the slant angle to explain the twilight times observed. Flat earth has it covered because it is the superior theory.
-
Apology accepted.
An odd way to apologize for misreading another statement's and intent, but I'll take what I can get.
Reminder, looking for hard proof for the sun moving at 15° degrees an hour along the solar ecliptic, different than the vertical ecliptic mentioned/referenced by Thork earlier in the thread. Having a small touch of trouble as he doesn't seem ready to accept the special build sundial posted by Jocelyn.
I was the one looking for hard proof. The real world times between the various degrees of twilight blew that round earth assumption apart. I was left wanting though. :'(
No twilight shows it doesn't move at 15° per hour upon the path perpendicular to the horizon. Which was never claimed, that was your strawman assumption, NOT the RE assertion. The sun needs to be tracked upon the plane/ecliptic of it's actual motion to show a steady rate of 15° per hour. Jocelyn DID point out a way to do this, and the unique sundial she presented supported this assertion. I'm curious if anyone has personally done the experiment Jocelyn suggested with the sticks, or if we can find someone who has compiled said experiment before.
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.
I believe the above bit should cover this, but wanted to be clear. Measuring along the plane perpendicular to the horizon will *not* show 15° of movement per hour. You must be measuring along the plane of the suns motion. Which so far the only thing presented that does so, is Jocelyn's unique sundial earlier in the thread, that does in fact have evenly spaced hour markings as one would expect.
-
My mate just set up his own business and made his first sale today. We must adjourn as it is beer o'clock on this side of the disc. ;D
-
My mate just set up his own business and made his first sale today. We must adjourn as it is beer o'clock on this side of the disc. ;D
Slaintë!
-
To bring it up yes, to want to discuss how latitude works on a flat earth is another topic. You have to accept that is does work in this thread so we can work on sundials.
No, to show that latitude does not work on a FE is to show that sun If you wish to abandon sundials as you believe the real proof lies in latitude, that's a separate thread.
Latitude does work on a flat earth. Please look at the map in our FAQ.
Incorrect. Either the sun's altitude fluctuates based on your latitude, which is nonsensical, or the distance between latitude lines varies which is does not agree with real life navigation.
-
Apology accepted.
An odd way to apologize for misreading another statement's and intent, but I'll take what I can get.
Reminder, looking for hard proof for the sun moving at 15° degrees an hour along the solar ecliptic, different than the vertical ecliptic mentioned/referenced by Thork earlier in the thread. Having a small touch of trouble as he doesn't seem ready to accept the special build sundial posted by Jocelyn.
I was the one looking for hard proof. The real world times between the various degrees of twilight blew that round earth assumption apart. I was left wanting though. :'(
No twilight shows it doesn't move at 15° per hour upon the path perpendicular to the horizon. Which was never claimed, that was your strawman assumption, NOT the RE assertion. The sun needs to be tracked upon the plane/ecliptic of it's actual motion to show a steady rate of 15° per hour. Jocelyn DID point out a way to do this, and the unique sundial she presented supported this assertion. I'm curious if anyone has personally done the experiment Jocelyn suggested with the sticks, or if we can find someone who has compiled said experiment before.
BT, we need to agree on something. Do you agree that on a flat earth, the sun does not advance at 15 degrees per hour, and that on a round earth, the sun must advance at 15 degrees per hour? This is what you seem to have been saying repeatedly throughout this thread. Do you agree?
Flat earth has the benefit of slant angles from a very close sun. I never got a round earth answer to explain why 15 degrees isn't observed contrary to theory.
I believe the above bit should cover this, but wanted to be clear. Measuring along the plane perpendicular to the horizon will *not* show 15° of movement per hour. You must be measuring along the plane of the suns motion. Which so far the only thing presented that does so, is Jocelyn's unique sundial earlier in the thread, that does in fact have evenly spaced hour markings as one would expect.
I am running observations today. Preliminary conclusions:
1. The JocelynSachs experiment is not easy to run with crummy equipment. I propose instead a clipboard or notebook with markings on paper. I am running both today, but the JocelynSachs experiment has proved pretty much useless. Who knew? Paper and pen, on the other hand, are very simple. (I do appreciate the superiority of the JS experiment since the sun's path is not apparently planar. But I don't have an armillary sundial handy. And measuring the angle between sticks proves too difficult for me. I am a poor mechanic or technician?)
2. Winter solstice is not a great time to run observations.
3. My house is not a great time to run observations.
4. We need to narrow our hypothesis to the following: If the sun apparently orbits the earth, then the sun cannot zoom past at noon. Therefore if the sun traverses more than 15 degrees per hour at noon, the sun does not apparently orbit the earth. Conversely, for the FES sun animation to work, the sun must zoom past me at noon (making up for lost time at the horizons). Therefore if the sun only traverses 15 degrees per hour at noon, the FES sun animation is not correct and the sun does not glide above the earth and the earth is not flat.
(https://preview.ibb.co/cSEdLR/20171220_081419.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kvkUS6)
BT seems to be more of a troll (perpetually evading agreement) than a bona fide conversant (getting to yes), so a more preliminary hypothesis might more appropriately be:
If BT agrees that London is outside in the USA, he may not be a troll. If he disagrees or refuses to answer straight, he is a troll.
-
BT seems to be more of a troll ...
Back the truck up. Who do you think you are talking to?
BT has been a member of the flat earth society for the better part of a decade.
BT served on the Zetetic Council.
BT wrote many parts of the wiki.
BT drew and had >o< added to the forum to allow round earthers to show how they felt about losing debates to BT.
BT has lectured on flat earth to universities, media outlets and after dinner soirées about flat earth.
BT conducts media interviews on behalf of the society.
BT has run many of the society's social media accounts.
BT has created so much content that many of the maps and images used in every day postings were originally drawn by BT.
BT has engaged in research projects with institutions to gather flat earth history and been a long time curator of flat earth information.
BT had the first ever user account on tfes.org.
BT has made over 40,000 posts on the forums from his various accounts.
If BT is a troll, BT should be up for 4chan troll of the year award for going above and beyond to get a 5min kick out saying something someone else doesn't agree with on the internet.
Or it could just be BT thinks the earth is flat and has dedicated many years in pursuit of sharing information on flat earth to anyone who is interested. Tell me Tom Haws, who discovered the flat earth society and created an account 3 weeks ago and has bawwed about its existence ever since, of us, who seems more like the troll?
-
Tell me Tom Haws, who discovered the flat earth society and created an account 3 weeks ago and has bawwed about its existence ever since, of us, who seems more like the troll?
I'm not questioning your dedication to TFES. I am trying to get to yes. But still you evade and posture.
Is London outside the USA? Do we agree on that?
If that's too silly for you to dignify, can you find anything to agree on?
-
Tell me Tom Haws, who discovered the flat earth society and created an account 3 weeks ago and has bawwed about its existence ever since, of us, who seems more like the troll?
I'm not questioning your dedication to TFES. I am trying to get to yes. But still you evade and posture.
Is London outside the USA? Do we agree on that?
If that's too silly for you to dignify, can you find anything to agree on?
Which London? London in Madison County, Ohio is definitely in the USA. London, England is not. Is this a trick question?
-
BT - did you see this flat sundial that
a) works everywhere on Earth
b) demonstrates 15 degrees/hour
c) allows for shadows on the top in the winter and on the bottom in the summer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-_tm_zIfE
You can build a similar sundial out of paper and see the 15 degrees per hour yourself:
https://www.robives.com/product/equatorial-sundial-model-2/