[Tom Bishop]

Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

Define "record of observation" in this case. Just so we're 100% on the same page here. Because what had been provided could be considered roughly equivalent to a verbal record of observation for five independent observers in most courts.

Defining a duration over which they must take place would also be useful.

Find an independent resource to support your arguments.

Edit: Giantturtle also appears to have supplied one in the other thread.

http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag

When did the UK invent the time machine?

[Nosyfox]

The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

[Tom Bishop]

The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anything more than a hypothesis.

[inquisitive]

The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anythibg more than a hypothesis.

Check timeanddate.com for details.  That's an independent source.

[Curious Squirrel]

Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

Define "record of observation" in this case. Just so we're 100% on the same page here. Because what had been provided could be considered roughly equivalent to a verbal record of observation for five independent observers in most courts.

Defining a duration over which they must take place would also be useful.

Find an independent resource to support your arguments.

Edit: Giantturtle also appears to have supplied one in the other thread.

http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag

When did the UK invent the time machine?

"Independent resource" means what? Records by people I don't know? Just how should I aquire said records without knowing them? I have four sources asked to compare true sunrise/set with the times given on timeanddates.com whenever they could during a month. Each reported for at least five days that those times were accurate to within the error margin given as best they could tell. How is this inadmissable?

[GiantTurtle]

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.

[Tom Bishop]

Check timeanddate.com for details.  That's an independent source.

That's a calculator. It provides predictions, not observations.

When emailed on how the data is generated timeanddate.com cited proprietary methodology. They refused to tell us if it is even based on a Round Earth model, or whether it is merely pattern based.

[Tom Bishop]

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.

Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.

[Curious Squirrel]

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.

Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.

How they got them is presently irrelevant. I have seen no statements that those times are actually incorrect by anyone. I have personally verified them for some dates, and have verification on their accuracy from four other sources around the Earth as well. Thus, it seems safe to accept them as accurate unless you have counter evidence. Thus any FE model must be able to account for the sun times they predict, which neither currently do. As is the subject of the OP.

[GiantTurtle]

Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.

They would have to be several hours off for the data to not prove the hole in your theory.....

But if you would like an independent review of the data, you and I are independent, we could do that. We could either stand outside or use webcams of anywhere in the world.

[Nosyfox]

The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? ...(cut)... what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anything more than a hypothesis.

No, this is definitely not "hypothesis", nor "common knowledge". This is only based on the definition of longitude. But maybe you don't know how longitude is defined on earth? At least your answer leads us to believe it. According to you, what do mean the sentences :" place X and place Y have the same longitude", and "the longitude of Z is 90 deg W" ?
We have to agree on the definition of longitude (and of latitude, of course) if we want this discussion to be fruitfull. Maybe there are different definitions for FE and RE, but in any case we have to know them to continue discussing (this concerns everybody in this thread, not only you and myself).

[3DGeek]

Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

[inquisitive]

Check timeanddate.com for details.  That's an independent source.

That's a calculator. It provides predictions, not observations.

When emailed on how the data is generated timeanddate.com cited proprietary methodology. They refused to tell us if it is even based on a Round Earth model, or whether it is merely pattern based.

Do not use the plural 'us', we know it is just you.  Do you agree the numbers match reality?

[Tom Bishop]

Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.

[inquisitive]

Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.

Who is this 'we'?

[Curious Squirrel]

Who? I'm referring to four people whom I know, none of which post on these forums. One in the UK, one in Ireland, one in Australia, and one on the West coast USA.

Let's try this again. I'll go slow. What. Is. Your. Standard. For. Evidence. Of. Timeanddates. Accuracy?

Real records of observations by independent observers are required. "Werks for me and my friends" is not a sufficient response.

So me and my friends can't be counted as independent observers?   Who can?   You don't seem to trust any astronomers, NASA people, map makers, etc.

Who will you trust to make these observations?

We generally accept evidence from all  sources.

Over the years we have seen evidence that NASA and co. seem to be running a phony space program, however, and so a source from them will be looked at in a dim light.

Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

[Tom Bishop]

Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.

[Curious Squirrel]

Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.

I entered this discussion offering that information. Which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I brought it forth as evidence to the validity of timeanddate when you once more brought it into question. How is that not the correct time to offer forth such evidence that had been being collected for the past month? Would you prefer I open a new thread just for to that? Seemed unneeded when it was already the subject of one in progress at about a time I felt I had a decent number of observations. This smells like you looking for a way to discredit it because you don't like it if I'm being frank. Which is frequently your modus operandi.

[Tom Bishop]

Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.

I entered this discussion offering that information. Which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I brought it forth as evidence to the validity of timeanddate when you once more brought it into question. How is that not the correct time to offer forth such evidence that had been being collected for the past month? Would you prefer I open a new thread just for to that? Seemed unneeded when it was already the subject of one in progress at about a time I felt I had a decent number of observations. This smells like you looking for a way to discredit it because you don't like it if I'm being frank. Which is frequently your modus operandi.

Are you even listening to yourself? The only evidence for Round Earth celestial accuracy (assuming that timeanddate is even based on RET) is the evidence you collected with your friends last month? 

[Curious Squirrel]

Then why do you not accept my presented observations? Is there something wrong with them? I can assure you none of these people are involved with NASA, only one of them is even based in the USA. Do you need more detail? You can't say "we accept all evidence" then turn around and say what I'm presenting isn't valid evidence without some explanation for why.

Its because in such debates you are defending the integrity of your position, and then suddenly claiming to have proved it last week with your friends is improper and reduces your credibility. It has nothing to do with the origin of the source being an astronomer or a cartographer.

I entered this discussion offering that information. Which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I brought it forth as evidence to the validity of timeanddate when you once more brought it into question. How is that not the correct time to offer forth such evidence that had been being collected for the past month? Would you prefer I open a new thread just for to that? Seemed unneeded when it was already the subject of one in progress at about a time I felt I had a decent number of observations. This smells like you looking for a way to discredit it because you don't like it if I'm being frank. Which is frequently your modus operandi.

Are you even listening to yourself? The only evidence for Round Earth celestial accuracy (assuming that timeanddate is even based on RET) is the evidence you collected with your friends last month?

Where did I ever say it was the only evidence? Where did I ever in this discussion say it was for RE celestial movement? You questioned t&d accuracy again. I presented that I had asked a few people to check it's accuracy for me in their varied locales for the past month. Which I had done specifically because of the last time this came up. You instantly state it isn't valid because reasons, despite it being exactly the sort of first hand evidence you are always looking for. So stop moving the fucking goalposts.

I think it's time to go through your bible and go piece by piece to show exactly what's wrong with every one of his "experiments" when held to the same standard, just like I recently did to his theodolite stuff in a thread you have vanished from after I did so. It was very cathartic and I should have some time after my vacation.

Slightly more on topic, the other forum has some wonderful imagery for how the sun has to shine at various times in the year for each rough model, and I'm gonna dig those up (or make my own) for this thread too I think.