[stack]

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

I can't believe I really have to spell this out, but they use the algorithms with current data.

[Tom Bishop]

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

I can't believe I really have to spell this out, but they use the algorithms with current data.

Do they? The sun has been doing the same thing for eons. What makes you think that the NOAA is using the data from the JPL tool rather than any other ephemeris source?

You are clearly not knowledgeable on where this data comes from, how it was generated, and are just making things up.

[stack]

"The Astronomical Almanac is a joint publication of the U.S. Nautical Almanac Office, United States Naval Observatory (USNO), in the United States and Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office (HMNAO), United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO), in the United Kingdom. The printed version contains precise ephemerides of the Sun, Moon, planets, and satellites, data for eclipses and other astronomical phenomena for a given year, and serves as a world-wide standard for such information.”

https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/astronomical-almanac-year-2019

NOAA is one of 7 uniformed services in the US governement.

As well, from 'Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications'



https://books.google.com/books/about/Fundamentals_of_Astrodynamics_and_Applic.html?id=PJLlWzMBKjkC

Lastly, Stellarium allows you to use JPL’s DE430 instead of it’s default VSOP87.

[iamcpc]

The sun has been doing the same thing for eons.

I don't see any evidence supporting this claim. Please link the studies, observations, photographs and videos that support this claim.

You are clearly not knowledgeable on where this data comes from, how it was generated, and are just making things up.

I don't see any evidence supporting these claims. Please link the studies, observations, photographs and videos that support this claim.

[AATW]

No double standards. You need to provide evidence for all claims.

Where is your evidence for the horizon staying at eye level?
The best I've seen you come up with so far are some "experiments" from Rowbotham which is him just saying "this is what I saw".
A quote on the Wiki which says that the horizon stayed PRACTICALLY at eye level at an altitude of 2 miles (I hope you can see the slight weakness in that argument, I've put the word in capitals if not)
And a shaky video from drone in which, amusingly, you actually can see the horizon drop as the drone ascends.
Meanwhile Bobby has done controlled experiments to demonstrate horizon dip and shown the proof.
You have declined to repeat these experiments of conduct your own tests.
I realise this is all a bit off topic but you brought up the subject of providing evidence for all claims when you demonstrably do not do so.

[Bobby Shafto]

You are clearly not knowledgeable on where this data comes from, how it was generated, and are just making things up.

They could be getting the data from gnomes for all I care. I've never caught these calculators not matching what is observed. Has anyone?

Approaching moonset just a little while ago. If anything is in error here, it's my estimation of azimuthal bearing lines.  re

(Graphic has mooncalc and timeanddate swapped, but that's beside the point.)

[Mysfit]

I am interested in a working flat earth map.
A zetetic approach to one would require observation of each part of the map. Each part should appear fairly flat and distances from one place to another can be measured easily enough.
The main problem with the zetetic approach is the sea, how do you observe each chunk of sea?
It is, effectively, incalculable without pictures from very high up.
Pictures might not line up with zetetic reasoning, though. I am at an impasse.

Tom, how does a zetetic measure what cannot be seen?
I consider you to be the closest expert, but would love to be redirected as necessary.

[MCToon]

Claim: On the equinoxes everywhere on the world experiences nearly 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night.  Except possibly the polar regions.

Proof:
https://xkcd.com/2050

[iamcpc]

Claim: On the equinoxes everywhere on the world experiences nearly 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night.  Except possibly the polar regions.

Proof:
https://xkcd.com/2050

I'm really struggling to see how this thread is about making a map. It seems to me it seems to be more about sun observations.

You are clearly not knowledgeable on where this data comes from, how it was generated, and are just making things up.

They could be getting the data from gnomes for all I care. I've never caught these calculators not matching what is observed. Has anyone?

Approaching moonset just a little while ago. If anything is in error here, it's my estimation of azimuthal bearing lines.  re

(Graphic has mooncalc and timeanddate swapped, but that's beside the point.)

This is something that I just don't get. There are some things such as sun position which people can easily corroborate just by going outside. It's so easy in fact that hundreds of thousands of people have done this. Thousands and thousands of students people along the tropics go out during the solstice. Manhattenhenge and Stonehenge are things that have been known and corroborated by millions of people over the years. I'm shocked that these claims can't be made without the demand for a ridiculous amount of proof. Even then when you provide evidence it gets nit picked into oblivion.

[MCToon]

Claim: On the equinoxes everywhere on the world experiences nearly 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night.  Except possibly the polar regions.

Proof:
https://xkcd.com/2050

I'm really struggling to see how this thread is about making a map. It seems to me it seems to be more about sun observations.

You are correct.  At this point I am collecting information to use when laying out the map.  The map must match observations or it is not correct.  Unfortunately, this thread has been hijacked.  I'm writing a new thread to restart the discussion, trying to frame it is a way that won't get hijacked.  Unless, of course, people's aim is to hijack and not discuss or learn, then anything can be hijacked and it will be up to the will of the participants (or moderators) to resist the hijacking.

[iamcpc]

You are correct.  At this point I am collecting information to use when laying out the map.  The map must match observations or it is not correct.  Unfortunately, this thread has been hijacked.  I'm writing a new thread to restart the discussion, trying to frame it is a way that won't get hijacked.  Unless, of course, people's aim is to hijack and not discuss or learn, then anything can be hijacked and it will be up to the will of the participants (or moderators) to resist the hijacking.

The problem, as you have already seen, is that any sort of sun "observations" can be picked apart ad infinitum VERY easily by anyone. You are making such large claims about such massive sections of earth (such as the entire equator) which are virtually impossible to back up with the volume of data required.

Something that is much less likely to get stuck in the ad infinitum loop is an observation like "Nebraska is North of Kansas" or "Oklahoma City is about a 3 hour drive from Dallas". You are not making broad blanket claims about observations along the entire equator which is thousands and thousand of miles in all earth models.

You are instead making a claim of of a distance of a few hundred miles which already has hundreds and hundreds of photographs from the google street view car.

[MCToon]

You are correct.  At this point I am collecting information to use when laying out the map.  The map must match observations or it is not correct.  Unfortunately, this thread has been hijacked.  I'm writing a new thread to restart the discussion, trying to frame it is a way that won't get hijacked.  Unless, of course, people's aim is to hijack and not discuss or learn, then anything can be hijacked and it will be up to the will of the participants (or moderators) to resist the hijacking.

The problem, as you have already seen, is that any sort of sun "observations" can be picked apart ad infinitum VERY easily by anyone. You are making such large claims about such massive sections of earth (such as the entire equator) which are virtually impossible to back up with the volume of data required.

Something that is much less likely to get stuck in the ad infinitum loop is an observation like "Nebraska is North of Kansas" or "Oklahoma City is about a 3 hour drive from Dallas". You are not making broad blanket claims about observations along the entire equator which is thousands and thousand of miles in all earth models.

You are instead making a claim of of a distance of a few hundred miles which already has hundreds and hundreds of photographs from the google street view car.

True.  There comes a time when rational people must acknowledge truth without pedantically arguing everything.  Those that observe the conversation will draw their conclusions about the rationality of the "must provide documentation" claims.

Me: I am not a cyborg.
Pedant: Prove it.  You made the claim, you have the borden of proof.

These types of conversations are not beneficial.  The pedant here is not interested in an honest conversation, observers will dismiss and ignore the pedant.

This forum is neither a court of law nor a debate competition where people win or lose points based on adhering to debate rules.  I'm interested in seeking truth, not winning points in a debate.  So, when something is well documented and apparently the truth, I am interested in conversations about if the claim is truthful, not "show documentation" conversations.

Again, observers can judge for themselves the truth about the claims and the intentions of the pedants.

So, I'm moving on from this particular discussion.  I will be starting a new thread soon to explore the FE map.  I hope people will actually participate and not derail.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

We could compare the astronomical predictions made by the flat earth model to those predictions made by the mainstream solar/lunar calculators. It would be the final test of which model is right. But there are two small problems with that plan....

1st.     We have no flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us test.
2nd.    There's no such thing as a flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us to test.

Otherwise, we could just check the data against observations and see which is more accurate.

[iamcpc]

We could compare the astronomical predictions made by the flat earth model to those predictions made by the mainstream solar/lunar calculators. It would be the final test of which model is right. But there are two small problems with that plan....

1st.     We have no flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us test.
2nd.    There's no such thing as a flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us to test.

Otherwise, we could just check the data against observations and see which is more accurate.

We keep bringing the Sun and Moon into making a map. I really fail to understand it. When I look at a map of Minneapolis or Canada I don't see anything indicating predicted sun and moon positions on it.

I understand the stars/sun/moon being used for sea navigation.

[Curious Squirrel]

We could compare the astronomical predictions made by the flat earth model to those predictions made by the mainstream solar/lunar calculators. It would be the final test of which model is right. But there are two small problems with that plan....

1st.     We have no flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us test.
2nd.    There's no such thing as a flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us to test.

Otherwise, we could just check the data against observations and see which is more accurate.

We keep bringing the Sun and Moon into making a map. I really fail to understand it. When I look at a map of Minneapolis or Canada I don't see anything indicating predicted sun and moon positions on it.

I understand the stars/sun/moon being used for sea navigation.

The FE side has stated repeatedly that published distances cannot be trusted. "The distance from NY to Paris is unknown" after all. Sunrise/set times, and elevation of the sun, can create a rough map of where things have to be in relation to one another without a great need for distance. It can also be used to rule out proposed maps, namely those that wouldn't allow a 'spotlight sun' to function. So it's a possible test against any proposed layout.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

We could compare the astronomical predictions made by the flat earth model to those predictions made by the mainstream solar/lunar calculators. It would be the final test of which model is right. But there are two small problems with that plan....

1st.     We have no flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us test.
2nd.    There's no such thing as a flat earth model that accurately predicts solar lunar events for us to test.

Otherwise, we could just check the data against observations and see which is more accurate.

We keep bringing the Sun and Moon into making a map. I really fail to understand it. When I look at a map of Minneapolis or Canada I don't see anything indicating predicted sun and moon positions on it.

I understand the stars/sun/moon being used for sea navigation.

When mapping a single city, sun and moon won't matter at all. When mapping a continent, time zones predict the movement of the sun over time which speaks to distances between points on the continent. If you're mapping a planet, the movement of the sun and moon speaks to the size and shape of the planet. If your map is physically wrong, it will fail to accurately predict astronomical events.

[iamcpc]

When mapping a single city, sun and moon won't matter at all. When mapping a continent, time zones predict the movement of the sun over time which speaks to distances between points on the continent. If you're mapping a planet, the movement of the sun and moon speaks to the size and shape of the planet. If your map is physically wrong, it will fail to accurately predict astronomical events.

I am able to use a map to drive from Northern Canada all the way to the southern part of South America with cloudy conditions through the entire trip so that i'm unable to ever see the sun, the moon, or even a single star. We are not talking about across the street. We are talking about millions and millions and millions of square miles which can be easily navigated by looking only at a paper map or series of paper maps none of which predicted the movement of the sun or moon.

Predicting astronomical events and cartography are two different things. Traveling damn near from one pole to the other does not require knowing what time and direction the sun should rise in the city 100 miles south of here.


Look at this system:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/sunrise.html

It predicts the movement of the sun. Can I use it to navigate the earth? Nope I sure can't. This has got to be the WORST map of the earth I've ever seen.

It seems pretty good at predicting the movement of the sun.

[MCToon]

When mapping a single city, sun and moon won't matter at all. When mapping a continent, time zones predict the movement of the sun over time which speaks to distances between points on the continent. If you're mapping a planet, the movement of the sun and moon speaks to the size and shape of the planet. If your map is physically wrong, it will fail to accurately predict astronomical events.

I am able to use a map to drive from Northern Canada all the way to the southern part of South America with cloudy conditions through the entire trip so that i'm unable to ever see the sun, the moon, or even a single star. We are not talking about across the street. We are talking about millions and millions and millions of square miles which can be easily navigated by looking only at a paper map or series of paper maps none of which predicted the movement of the sun or moon.

Predicting astronomical events and cartography are two different things. Traveling damn near from one pole to the other does not require knowing what time and direction the sun should rise in the city 100 miles south of here.


Look at this system:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/sunrise.html

It predicts the movement of the sun. Can I use it to navigate the earth? Nope I sure can't. This has got to be the WORST map of the earth I've ever seen.

It seems pretty good at predicting the movement of the sun.

If you look at the observations that have been accepted so far it starts to constrain the map.  For example, if you accept observations #1 and #4 as accurate:

1. On the equinox the sun traces a very nearly straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
4. On the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth, except for the polar regions.

Then the equator must be straight line east-west.  There is no way to have that observation be true and the equator not be straight line east-west.  This eliminates the AE map and all it's variants, but allows the bi-polar map and the infinite repeating plane.

Now, if you reject the equator being straight you also must reject observations #1 and #4.

By keeping the observations simple, easy to understand, easy to verify, and non-contentious rational people can have a discussion about it.

So far, we have a beginning: all points on the equator are on a straight east-west line.  There are no bounds on the distances, but the relative east-west positions cannot be rearranged.  If people wanted to contribute instead of whining, I think we could make some interesting progress.