[GiantTurtle]

Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[3DGeek]

Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Either way - what matters is that all of the solar power plants at the same longitude started generating power at about the same time.

That would indicate that the sun is at about the same angle relative to the horizon - be it a bit above or a bit below doesn't matter.

This would mean that the line of longitude must be straight - which destroys your bipolar map...and indeed any map that doesn't have STRAIGHT lines of longitude.

The only way to have a singular North Pole and straight lines of longitude is in the old unipolar map.

15 minutes after sunrise Netherlands reads 0.004kW/kW and 15 minutes after sunrise Australia reads 0.042kWh. Why the big difference? So where is the sun really? How do we know that these either of these areas were not experiencing twilight?

The amount of energy that they make will be different because each site has a different number of solar panels - and possibly different amounts of cloud or rain.

The ONLY important thing is that they both started generating power at the same time...which indicates that the sun got high enough in the sky to start generating power in the morning (and low enough in the sky to stop) at the same time - meaning that the sun was in more or less the same position above or below the horizon at that moment.

That's enough to prove a straight line of longitude and that's enough to defeat Flat Earthism based around the bipolar map.  Defeating the unipolar map is child's play.

[GiantTurtle]

Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<

[Tom Bishop]

Which is it? Does power get generated by twilight, or does power not get generated for a few minutes after sunrise?

If it's consistent at every latitude, that still tells you something about what the equinox is.

How about at the next equinox, you and I can go outside and validate the predicted timeanddate.com sunrise and sunset times, and we can get someone with solar panels to show us their production curve, and we'll have some actual data about how solar panels behave?

The data you posted shows that very little power is being generated. Why is anyone to assume that the sun is actually above the horizon? That is not a clear conclusion.

There seems to be missing time there, as you yourself admit that the panels are only producing power for 11.5 hours. If the solar panels started creating power ONLY if the sun was above the horizon, then they should be producing power for 12 hours. The calculators say the sun should be above the horizon for 12 hours. With the addition of twilight in consideration the panels should be producing power for over 12 hours; yet it is under that figure.

[Tom Bishop]

Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<

Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.

[3DGeek]

The data you posted shows that very little power is being generated. Why is anyone to assume that the sun is actually above the horizon? That is not a clear conclusion.

There seems to be missing time there, as you yourself admit that the panels are only producing power for 11.5 hours. If the solar panels started creating power ONLY if the sun was above the horizon, then they should be producing power for 12 hours. The calculators say the sun should be above the horizon for 12 hours. With the addition of twilight in consideration the panels should be producing power for over 12 hours; yet it is under that figure.

It really doesn't matter.  If these panels all start generating power when the sun is X degrees above the horizon then the time when the sun reaches that angle on the equinox is roughly the same for all power plants that are at the same longitude.   It doesn't matter whether this is just before, or just after sunrise.   It's perfectly possible for them to start generating power only when the sun has risen a little above the horizon - at very shallow angles, the glass covering on the panels will reflect sunlight away rather than allowing it to pass through.

Of course, in your world, the sun is ALWAYS over the horizon by at least 20 to 30 degrees but somehow the photons that are travelling in a straight line from the sun to the solar panels are...I dunno what...magically perspectivized away.

Hmmm - don't you owe us a new thread on that one **STILL**?

[Tom Bishop]

Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

You linked me to a pay site that gives a 4 page preview when signing up. Please produce the information.

[Tom Bishop]

It's perfectly possible for them to start generating power only when the sun has risen a little above the horizon - at very shallow angles, the glass covering on the panels will reflect sunlight away rather than allowing it to pass through.

If you have to resort to that argument then you may as well admit that this assessment is insufficient.

Of course, in your world, the sun is ALWAYS over the horizon by at least 20 to 30 degrees but somehow the photons that are travelling in a straight line from the sun to the solar panels are...I dunno what...magically perspectivized away.

Hmmm - don't you owe us a new thread on that one **STILL**?

I don't owe you anything. I have describe the matter on numerous occasions and you can take your off topic rants to another thread.

[GiantTurtle]

Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.

Well the earth must be a shape, discarding Columbus pear shape hypothesis an argument against a round earth is an argument for a flat earth. But do you mean you are not arguing for one shape of the earth or another?
But it doesn't change the fact that when explaining the twilight, your definition was given in a diagram of the sun descending past the horizon of a round earth.

[Rama Set]

Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.

Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<

Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.

If you argument is to be taken as valid, the data supporting it must also be valid. The data you provided is for a RE. Is your argument valid?

[3DGeek]

Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Where are the actual logs? I see a reference to them - but not the actual data.   That sounds fascinating.   The "Green Flash" phenomenon is understood in RET (although it's very hard to observe in practice)...this would be a great "Disproof" of FET...and I'd love to hear Tom dance around explaining it using "magic perspective".

[douglips]

If you have to resort to that argument then you may as well admit that this assessment is insufficient.

I readily admit that I do not yet have evidence that the panels are not producing power during twilight, nor do I have evidence for how long after sunrise it might take for them to start producing power.

If I were to demonstrate that solar panels generate no power until 15 or 20 minutes after observed sunrise would that satisfy you? If not, please let me know what proof would satisfy.

[Mock]

Just really quick, since I should be sleeping and don't have much time:

I think that if someone could visualize the positions and power outputs on a map with a Lat/Long grid, it might clear up the argument a bit. I might have time to do it tomorrow (European) night, but if anyone else feels like it in the meantime, feel free.

And douglips, you really are a genius for coming up with the solar cell thing :>

[mtnman]

And douglips, you really are a genius for coming up with the solar cell thing :>

Ditto, agreed with that comment.

[Mark_1984]

You see what’s he’s done. You started with a discussion about and equinox. They can’t answer that, so they discredited a trusted data source, which they could easily check for themselves by looking out of the window. Now they’re arguing the toss about solar cells.

[3DGeek]

You see what’s he’s done. You started with a discussion about and equinox. They can’t answer that, so they discredited a trusted data source, which they could easily check for themselves by looking out of the window. Now they’re arguing the toss about solar cells.

Yeah - we're familiar with the tactic.

Looks like Tom has given up his claim to be able to explain the passage of photons from sun to eye at sunset.  Kinda what I expected.

[Xfires]

Are then actually any FET people on this site that are willing to discuss how they actually believe this stuff?

[3DGeek]

Are then actually any FET people on this site that are willing to discuss how they actually believe this stuff?

Not so far.

I'm a little surprised that nobody is leaping to explain sunsets using the "Electromagnetic Accelerator" idea.   Tom says that he doesn't believe it anymore - but I'm surprised that nobody else latched onto it.