Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
(...)
You have not yet provided the +6 hour solution.
(...)
Why doesn't Solar Noon move?Why doesn't what move? Your question is a nonsense question here Tom. If this is what you're attempting to ask, you will need to explain what exactly it is that you mean.
Solar Noon is based on a 24 hour Solar Day. After 364.24 days Solar Noon should have moved ~6 Hours. The geometry of the scene when the earth returns to the September Equinox point shows that Solar Noon is not in that place.
(...) Where does the .24 come from? (...)
(...) Furthermore, the equinox only moves at a rate measured in eons. (..)
Because the total difference over the entire year, is just 6 hours? I would note, even this simulation isn't exact. Look at the times of the equionoxes here if you wish. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.htmlThe diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.
You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.
Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.
If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?
12 hour difference from sidreal, - 3 hour difference from half the year rotation offset. Bam, the time of the opposite equinox or solstice. Actually doesn't look quite right for the solstice, just the equinox. Interesting. Not sure why, would have to look a bit more.
Are you saying that the Astronomy Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln got Round Earth Astronomy wrong, and that you know better than them?
Their simulation is clearly showing that Solar Time is related to the Equinoxes and Solstices of the year. (...)
(..)
And whatever is pushing the earth in this concept, feels an increasing mass and has therefor to push harder to keep the acceleration constant. And any force needs energy and an infinite force needs infinite energy.
(...)
These two 4-cornered itineraries take roughly the same amount of time. Any flat projection of the earth needs to account for it. The problem is that you get a wrap-around problem on one of the legs that should make the trip far longer. If you bunch the countries together at the northern poll then the southern itinerary suffers. Bunching to the south messes up the north conversely. There is logically no way to arrange and stretch the continents on a flat surface that will account for these two itineraries at the same time.
However, if the earth wraps around like a tube, then the numbers can be justified. All of this makes the assumption that planes don't deliberately sometimes fly slower just to trick us.
This is evidence. Let me know what you think.
I'm not surprised that this hasn't garnered responses. The claim is always that the various maps are all inaccurate, and that the real flat Earth map hasn't yet been produced. Flight times, however, are inherently incompatible with any flat Earth map.
I think I've mooted the idea of a school project involving wire and plasticine. Cut the wire to lengths proportional to the travel times between cities, and try to make a model accordingly. It's not possible to make a flat model. Connect the wires between North and South of the Equator, and you start to build a sphere. It's the only way the connections link up. It's not perfect, of course. Shorter flights spend proportionately more time on the runway and attaining altitude, and not all flights are at the same speed. Prevailing winds will have an influence. Still, as a way of getting a general concept of the shape of the world, it's not bad.
Flight times are an excellent way to kill the flat Earth nonsense from the start, because unlike many of the ways to verify the globe, flight times involve the everyday experience of ordinary people. Tell people about measuring angles to the Sun, and they switch off. Tell them about how long it takes to fly to Hawaii, and they know that's for real.
It's clear that most of the people on this board are here to debunk FE. I'm interested in their motivations. Do they think they're going to change minds? Is it the challenge? Have they just picked a group they can easily ridicule?
Interested.
Equinox is just the sun passing the equatorial plane, its not a fixed point.Right. And there’s nothing in that definition requiring it to occur after a whole number of 365 solar day rotations of the earth. The extra 0.24 hours don’t “come out of nowhere.” That event doesn’t occur at the same moment every 365 solar says. It happens about 6 hours later every year.
And as Macharios says, (I think) the calendar we use for convention’s sake ignores those “extra hours” for a few years even though celestially the equinox is shifted. Rather than adjust yearly, incrementally, we let it go, accounting for those extra hours with a whole day adjustment every 4 years to realign. But the sun and earth don’t wait for man’s calendar. If we didn’t adjust, our calendars would fall behind because of those “extra hours” and after awhile, we’d notice the seasons weren’t right.
The equinox shifts 6 hours a year?
The equinox's variation occurs with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years. The shift takes a very long time. At the moment The Equinox is aligned with the constellation of Pisces, and we are moving into the "Age of Aquarius." The time between Zodiac points is about 2,150 years.The Sun needs to get back to the point of the Equinox under the definition of a Solar Year. It has to match up with the Solar Day.First sentence, I agree. It “needs to” for the definition to be true.
But what I’m not getting is why you think the second sentence is a “has to” situation and, if it doesn’t, it’s a problem.
It clearly doesn’t meet your “has to” expectation since Equinox occurrence slides later by about 5.8 “extra hours” each year, and would keep sliding forward into the calendar year if we didn’t add a day to the calendar every four years.
I’m not picking up on why this is a problem. Solar days don’t “have to” fit neatly and non-fractionally into the solar year. Not in reality, and not by definition.
The Equinox shifts with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years, due to the movement of the Galaxy.
Why is it shifting 6 hours a year? What kind of Galaxy do we live in?Now, would you care to point out where *anywhere* uses a whole number of solar days to define a solar year? Or where *anywhere* even suggests this should be the case? Other than your misintepretation of something, or not reading something fully, nothing suggests this but you. You are completely alone in suggestion there must be a whole number of solar days in a solar year. (remember, a calendar year =/= a solar year)
There are 24 hours in a Solar Day. There are 354.24 Solar Days in a Solar Year.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year we readQuoteThe mean tropical year in 2000 was 365.24219 ephemeris days; each ephemeris day lasting 86,400 SI seconds.[1] This is 365.24217 mean solar days (Richards 2013, p. 587).
The Solar Year is defined at the moment where sun intersects the Equinox, which only occurs twice a year (March Equinox and September Equinox). The Time between one March Equinox to the next March Equinox is 354.24 Solar Days, with incredibly slight variation at decimal points beyond that.
Where do the extra hours come from?
The Equinox moves 6 hours in a year? The Equinox moves due to the rotation of the Galaxy, and a quarter rotation of the Equinox takes many eons.
Where do the extra hours come from?
I thought your problem was the 12 hour offset at the halfway mark of the earth’s orbit around the sun. That’s explained by the difference between sidereal and solar day references.
That's a problem as well, but the discussion has progressed to showing that the Solar Day does not fit into the number of Solar Days in a Solar Year.
QuoteIf sidereal has nothing to do with it, then what’s the problem again? “The solar day doesn’t fit into the solar year?” What does that mean? Are the “extra hours” you’re now talking about the 0.24 day tacked onto the 356 day solar year? That’s a different issue. A different problem.]If sidereal has nothing to do with it, then what’s the problem again? “The solar day doesn’t fit into the solar year?” What does that mean? Are the “extra hours” you’re now talking about the 0.24 day tacked onto the 356 day solar year? That’s a different issue. A different problem.
Yes. That is the problem we are talking about now. The .24 come out of nowhere and does not match up with the Solar Year where the sun needs to return to the point of the Equinox.
(...)QuoteIf those are the “extra hours” then yes. That IS different from what I’ve been trying to explain about the NYC half year “problem” you started with. Those ARE extra hours, needed BECAUSE the solar days don’t “fit” the solar year in a nice, whole number of 365. The earth, on that 365th solar day is coming up just a bit short from where it began, relative to the sun.
The Sun needs to get back to the point of the Equinox under the definition of a Solar Year. It has to match up with the Solar Day.
300 million years ago, Antarctica was not at the South Pole. It was not frozen, either; it was actually more like tropics.
So clearly not a gigantic ice wall.
I will attempt an explanation.
--- --- ---
Step 1.
If you take a circle that is 360 degrees around and imagine that each of those degrees had 24 sub units in it (lets call them Sub-Degrees), the 24 sub-degrees should fit neatly into the 360 degree circle.
360 degrees / 24 sub-degrees = 15
The result should be a whole number.
The 360 degree circle is the higher hierarchical entity of the sub-degree, similar to how 100% of a pie is the higher hierarchical entity of the pie slices that fit within it.
--- --- ---
Step 2.
Not lets cut the circle in Step 1. and lay the line out flat on a circle. Lets also rename Degrees to Mega-Lengths and Sub-Degrees to Sub-Lengths now for less confusion.
We have 360 Mega-Legths. Each Mega Units has 24 Sub-Lengths.
360 Mega-Lengths / 24 Sub-Lengths = 15
The Sub-Length needs to fit into the 360 Mega-Length. Same thing, we are just visualizing it as lengths now to show that the scenario can be laid out flat.
--- --- ---
Step 3.
The 365.24 days year is like that 360 degree circle. The extra 5.24 days was added for for, I believe, the elongation of the earth's route along the sun.
It's an oval. But ovals still have 360 degrees in them, so the analogy is maintained.
If we consider the 365.24 days year as the length of the oval. We can call the days Mega-Lengths and the hours Sub-Lengths.
Now lay the lines down on a flat surface. We are working with lengths now, like the above analogy.
We have 365.24 Mega-Units.
We want to see if 24 Sub-Units fit into it..
365.24 / 24 = 15.21
This is not a while number. The Sub-Units does not fit into the whole Mega-Unit length.
--- --- ---
Does that make a little more sense?
I was starting to think it was something about me.
I've seen Tom muttering about gravitons which are admittedly theoretical.(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)
Wait, I've thought that we understand gravity very well... What did I miss?
I thought there were still some things not well understood about it but this is a bit above my level of understanding of physics tbh.
(...) I always find it odd that some people sniff at gravity because it's not fully understood (...)
No feedback? Criticisms? Commentary?
The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...