[edby]

Found on YouTube:

‘Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assumes that we live on a spherical surface’.

As far as I can determine, the second part is not correct. The first part is misleading, given that the practical application of of these measurements is for navigation to avoid ships crashing into land.

The second part is wrong. No such assumption is required. Latitude is an observable quantity based on the sun’s position. Longitude requires an accurate clock and a measurement of local noon.

Both are therefore measurable quantities, and so don’t depend on spherical earth assumptions. Of course, a spherical earth is a consequence of this, but a consequence and an assumption are quite different things.

[Tumeni]

Given that both are measured in degrees, and that there are 360 degrees of each ...

[edby]

Given that both are measured in degrees, and that there are 360 degrees of each ...

As I said, a spherical earth is a consequence of this. But we don't have to assume a spherical earth in order to make the observations. Longitude: get an accurate clock to measure the time (this was the problem for Harrison and co, but it's a mechanical thing). Then find the time at which the sun is highest. Then longitude is a simple mathematical function.

[Tumeni]

Measured in degrees - if you're assuming anything other than a circle, then at what point is the angle in degrees measured?

[edby]

One hour of time difference corresponds to 15° of longitude, because there are 24 hours in a day, and 360°/24 = 15°.

I am now wondering how FE theory explains time zones.

[edit] Ah. Drop the degrees bit, and use units of hours. But there is still a problem. Why are there exactly 24 time zones?

[Tumeni]

Why should we "drop the degrees bit", when we're measuring degrees of latitude and longitude?

[edby]

Ah I have it. The sun must always be over the flat earth, and travels like an hour hand over it (except half the speed). Furthermore, the sun must be more like a bar than a ball. It must literally be like an hour hand, with the centre of the clock being at the 'North Pole'. It looks like a ball, of course, but that is because of perspective or refraction.

Perspective or refraction explain pretty much everything.

Why should we "drop the degrees bit", when we're measuring degrees of latitude and longitude?

Posts crossed. Because, as you rightly say, degrees presumes a spherical earth. Drop degrees, and measure longitude in hours.

The problem now is that the sun, on this hypothesis, would look like a rainbow, with one end at the direct north, the other at the direct south. The rainbow would rise in the morning, with the top of the rainbow east, and set in the west.

But why doesn't it look that way?

[edit] Also, you mentioned latitude as well. Oh no! The conventional explanation of latitude depends on the sun NOT being a rainbow!!! How do we explain this?

[edby]

I just found an earlier thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7040.0

The problem is that your "everything we know to be true" demands that we assume that the earth is round; and you have not provided any data to show why we should accept the various assumptions you have presented to be correct.

This is essentially the argument I began with above, i.e. that Latitude and Longitude are concepts that originate with Astronomy and which assume that we live on a spherical surface.

The problem is that the observations underpinning Latitude and Longitude are independent of any such assumption. It is undeniable (1) that if we change position east west, high noon is at a different time relative to when I originaly set my clock, and (2) the sun rises to a different position depending on my position north-south.

Now it is difficult to reconcile these observations with anything but a spherical earth, but that is a separate issue. My suggestion above is of a ‘rainbow sun’.  That leads to the problem of why the sun doesn’t look like a rainbow, but that is a separate issue.

[Tontogary]

FE does not disagree with the longitude in degrees, just how it is laid out on a map!

The Wiki (i think) has a depiction of the sun going round and round, with the earth centre being the axis.

EnaG Uses the fact that the sun makes a path of a circle (well slight spiral) and makes a complete circuit every 24 hours to prove a point.

So if EnaG does not disagree with the longitude concept, then I guess we are on our way to some understanding.
Chapter IV discusses the above concept, and that of longitude.

He uses the words meridians, which are exactly as a navigator would describe them, Meridians of longitude.......

Longitude is just a measure of time, of when the sun is due north or south, then the path of the sun crosses the meridian of longitude. This concept works exactly the same on a plane or globe earth.

So longitude does not appear to be an issue, as that can work on a FE, until asked about a BiPolar model, and then....... well who knows....

[edby]

FE does not disagree with the longitude in degrees, just how it is laid out on a map!

The Wiki (i think) has a depiction of the sun going round and round, with the earth centre being the axis.

EnaG Uses the fact that the sun makes a path of a circle (well slight spiral) and makes a complete circuit every 24 hours to prove a point.

So if EnaG does not disagree with the longitude concept, then I guess we are on our way to some understanding.
Chapter IV discusses the above concept, and that of longitude.

He uses the words meridians, which are exactly as a navigator would describe them, Meridians of longitude.......

Longitude is just a measure of time, of when the sun is due north or south, then the path of the sun crosses the meridian of longitude. This concept works exactly the same on a plane or globe earth.

So longitude does not appear to be an issue, as that can work on a FE, until asked about a BiPolar model, and then....... well who knows....

Agree with all that. The question which occurred to me in the discussion above is how FE explains latitude.

[edit] https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Finding+your+Latitude+and+Longitude

[edit] convert globe earth coordinates to flat earth ones. https://uk.mathworks.com/help/aeroblks/llatoflatearth.html

[edit] And an excellent post on Metabunk (yes I know) https://www.metabunk.org/how-to-verify-latitude-and-longitude.t8648/

Latitude and Longitude create an inescapable problem for the Flat Earth promoters.

[edby]

And here is another problem that as a Flatearth/Globearth sceptic I find really difficult, namely the pole star.

Since the universe rotates around the earth, and since the pole star always maintains the same relative position, it follows that it lies (roughly) on the axis of rotation of the universe. But then it should always appear at the same angle, but it doesn't. The further south you go, the lower it appears. The further north, the higher.

I am completely at my wit's end trying to explain this. Tom, can you help?

[edit]To clarify this problem. Image below shows star trails, time lapse effect caused by the rotation of the universe. The centre of the star trail is the axis of rotation of the universe. But why does that axis appear to rise, the further north we travel? This is very difficult to explain on my assumption that the earth is flat.

[further edit] An even worse problem!!!  The photo was taken in Chile’s Atacama Desert, facing south!

[edby]

So let’s summarise all of this. Longitude, even measured in degrees, is not a problem for the FE system. However, regarding latitude:

1. Star trails are observable, and can be seen both in the South and the North. The centre of the northern star trail is Polaris, the centre of the southern one is Sigma Octantis. I am ruling out faked pictures here because star trails are in principle observable by FEers.
2. The only explanation of star trails consistent with FE is a geocentric system where the whole universe (sun, planets, stars) has an axis of rotation drawn (in a straight line) from Sigma Octantis to Polaris.
3. This straight line, i.e. the axis of rotation appears to change its angle depending on our position north or south. Only at the equator is it parallel to Flat Earth.
4. Either the axis actually changes its position, i.e. moves, as the observer moves north or south, or it does not move, and the flat earth is not flat.

This is a conclusion based only on observations that FEers agree with, and cannot be faked, and with a bit of logic (not much).

[Tontogary]

And here is another problem that as a Flatearth/Globearth sceptic I find really difficult, namely the pole star.

Since the universe rotates around the earth, and since the pole star always maintains the same relative position, it follows that it lies (roughly) on the axis of rotation of the universe. But then it should always appear at the same angle, but it doesn't. The further south you go, the lower it appears. The further north, the higher.

I am completely at my wit's end trying to explain this. Tom, can you help?

[edit]To clarify this problem. Image below shows star trails, time lapse effect caused by the rotation of the universe. The centre of the star trail is the axis of rotation of the universe. But why does that axis appear to rise, the further north we travel? This is very difficult to explain on my assumption that the earth is flat.

[further edit] An even worse problem!!!  The photo was taken in Chile’s Atacama Desert, facing south!

I dont think that picture is of the northern stars. From Chile, you would be looking at the southern stars, and as there is no southern pole star, you are looking at some very dim stars close to or near the southern axis.

I can agree with the explanation of what is seen in the northern latitudes, which for many of the concepts such as longitude, and lattidude, and physical distance between meridians etc do work (sort of) for the FE, but then completely fall apart when trying to make it work for the Southern Hemisphere.

There was a thread opened by tom, which linked a video, which tried to explain how the stars in the Southern Hemisphere might appear to move. Quite embarrassing to see someone make such a complete tit of themselves, with a ridiculous video

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9457.0

And my thread on it;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9445.0

[edby]

Ahem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Octantis South Pole Star
Much fainter than Polaris, but exists. In any case, the star trail proves an axis of rotation.

See also http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2016/08/star-trails-as-viewed-from-las-campanas-observatory-chile.html

[Tontogary]

Ahem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Octantis South Pole Star
Much fainter than Polaris, but exists. In any case, the star trail proves an axis of rotation.

See also http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2016/08/star-trails-as-viewed-from-las-campanas-observatory-chile.html

Ok i stand corrected, sort of.

There is no usable star that we see for navigational purposes, however there is a very faint star, there or nearly there. We dont use it for navigation though as it is too faint.

Polaris is not that bright, but we can use it. And it is not directly over the pole either.....

[edby]

Ahem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Octantis South Pole Star
Much fainter than Polaris, but exists. In any case, the star trail proves an axis of rotation.

See also http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2016/08/star-trails-as-viewed-from-las-campanas-observatory-chile.html

Ok i stand corrected, sort of.

There is no usable star that we see for navigational purposes, however there is a very faint star, there or nearly there. We dont use it for navigation though as it is too faint.

Polaris is not that bright, but we can use it. And it is not directly over the pole either.....

In any case that is a red herring. The stair trail photos, assuming they are not faked, show the universe rotating around an axis, per FE model.

We draw the axis from the centre of the Southern trail, to the centre of the Northern one. No actual star in the centre required.

[Tontogary]

Ahem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Octantis South Pole Star
Much fainter than Polaris, but exists. In any case, the star trail proves an axis of rotation.

See also http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2016/08/star-trails-as-viewed-from-las-campanas-observatory-chile.html

Ok i stand corrected, sort of.

There is no usable star that we see for navigational purposes, however there is a very faint star, there or nearly there. We dont use it for navigation though as it is too faint.

Polaris is not that bright, but we can use it. And it is not directly over the pole either.....

In any case that is a red herring. The stair trail photos, assuming they are not faked, show the universe rotating around an axis, per FE model.

We draw the axis from the centre of the Southern trail, to the centre of the Northern one. No actual star in the centre required.

Per FE model? Dont you mean as per RE model?
FE think the stars are on a plane above the plane earth

[edby]

Per FE model? Dont you mean as per RE model?
FE think the stars are on a plane above the plane earth

No per FE model. The RE model includes the heliocentric system. FE model is geocentric flat earth system. On this system, the entire universe, sun, moon, planets and stars and all, rotate daily around a flat earth.

The mindset I am adopting is of an FE scientist trying to make sense of observations such as star trails.

The threads you pointed to were interesting, but got rapidly derailed, e.g. 'crepuscular rays'. I don't think these are consistent with the geocentric FE model.

[edby]

From the earlier thread:

As an addendum to his video, perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.

The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.

No Sigma Octantis cannot 'sweep across the earth'. It is at the centre of rotation of the southern star trail.

[rabinoz]

From the earlier thread:

As an addendum to his video, perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.

The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.

No Sigma Octantis cannot 'sweep across the earth'. It is at the centre of rotation of the southern star trail.

What Tom Bishop claims in that posts is total rubbish. I know because on any clear night (it's cloudy tonight), I can see that out my back door.
Sigma Octantis might be too faint to see but the Southern Cross (Crux) is easily seen as it rotates about the South Celestial Pole almost like an hour hand on a huge 24-hour clock.
It would be in about a 1 o'clock position now - if I could see it.

Tom Bishop seems to think there are no people living "down south" who can see with their own eyes just how wrong he is.