[Dr Van Nostrand]

No. You need to show what observations, if any, that the calculator is based on. We have emailed timeanddate in the past and they refused to reveal their sources.

Don't need to show anything. Any day, any time, go out and perform an observation and compare it with timeanddate.

Have you done that? Have you any reason to believe what timeanddate (or Stellarium or any "calculator" we reference) is not accurate? If you don't, then the calculator IS documentation until you can prove it to be unreliable.

"Prove me wrong" is not a legitimate debate strategy and is instant disqualification. You need to prove your own self correct.

Respectfully, timeanddate dot com produces accurate predictions that can be observed in the world around us.  Tom does not.

Then you should be able to link us to documented observations that prove what the sun does on equinox or solstice.

Are you to say that there is a mountain of observations which were generated at great cost, without even a mention of those efforts on the calculator websites or in any other resoruce, and then such observations and reports were immediately then thrown away, leaving the data source for these calculators a complete mystery?

No. That is completely stupid. There was no world-wide sun fact finding excursion.

The calculators don't need piles documentation, they make accurate predictions that anyone can observe. Have you any documentation that their predictions were ever wrong?

How accurate are the predictions of the FET models?  What do the FET model calculators predict?

In fact, lets compare the accuracy of predictions generated by FET models to mainstream astronomical models. That would be interesting.

[Tom Bishop]

No. You need to show what observations, if any, that the calculator is based on. We have emailed timeanddate in the past and they refused to reveal their sources.

Don't need to show anything. Any day, any time, go out and perform an observation and compare it with timeanddate.

Have you done that? Have you any reason to believe what timeanddate (or Stellarium or any "calculator" we reference) is not accurate? If you don't, then the calculator IS documentation until you can prove it to be unreliable.

I can attest that when I have referred to timeanddate.com it has always been correct.

Tom, remember, I have chosen observations that are easily verifiable and there is little or no contention about them.  If you think these observations are inaccurate, make it known.  So far, you have not raised any objections to the observations.  I don't know why you re being so obstructionist.  I sincerely doubt you have any objections to observations #1, #4, and #5.  Are you are just messing around and are not sincerely seeking truth?

I'm not looking for a mathematical type proof, like proving there are infinite primes.  I've looked at the proof for infinite primes, it's thick and, not studying math currently, I no longer understand the technical proof, but, without the proof, I conceptually understand why there are infinite primes.  People can have conversations about infinite primes without first going through the proof and agreeing it is correct and acceptable, or even understanding the proof.

I am looking for an honest conversation about these observations.  Tell us why you think they are incorrect os silently accept them as correct.

Look at our page on the NOAA Solar Calculator. These calculators are based on patterns and trends of previous occurrences, not a Round Earth model.

The values are completely independent, pattern-based, and the output of the calculator does not even fit into a Round Earth model. The videos at the bottom of that link show that the sun cannot be triangulated to a single point in the heliocentric system.

The time of sunrise and sunset is a pattern, and is different from another pattern for the direction the sun rises and sets. One pattern may be correct, while another pattern may be incorrect.

There was never any world-wide sun study. There is no vast collection of sun observations. These calculators are based on patterns and assumptions.

[Tom Bishop]

The calculators don't need piles documentation, they make accurate predictions that anyone can observe. Have you any documentation that their predictions were ever wrong?

"Prove me wrong" is not a valid debating strategy, and is an instant lose. You need to prove your own self correct.

There should be evidence that these calculators are correct.

[MCToon]

Bobby, Dr Van Nostrand, other readers of this thread,

I am honestly seeking confirmation about the accuracy of these observations.  I have already identified and fixed my initial incorrect observations for #2 and #3.  I feel good about these but would love several more people to apply their criticism to ensure correctness.

1. on the equinox the sun traces a straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. on the northern solstice the sun is directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. on the southern solstice the sun is directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4.  on the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth.
5.  on the equinox, for all locations on the equator, the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west.

[Bobby Shafto]

No. You need to show what observations, if any, that the calculator is based on. We have emailed timeanddate in the past and they refused to reveal their sources.

Don't need to show anything. Any day, any time, go out and perform an observation and compare it with timeanddate.

Have you done that? Have you any reason to believe what timeanddate (or Stellarium or any "calculator" we reference) is not accurate? If you don't, then the calculator IS documentation until you can prove it to be unreliable.

"Prove me wrong" is not a legitimate debate strategy and is instant disqualification. You need to prove your own self correct.

But you have to have a reason for rejecting the proof offered.

Why is a calculator with a proven history of accuracy not acceptable?

Do you trust clocks?

Your rejection of TimeandDate as failing to satisfy your demand for "documentation" is without merit, unless you can explain how it has merit.

Let me ask you this: in whatever flat earth "model" you choose, does the sun follow a path of the Tropic of the Cancer for one full day cycle? Because it doesn't in the globe earth model. It reaches the Tropic of Cancer for a moment and then begins to traverse back south in latitude. Only one location at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer experiences a solar noon of 90 degrees elevation.

Do you have reason to doubt that? Is it different for a flat earth? Does the sun not move gradually between the Tropics on a flat earth? Or does it transcribe a path at a single, unchanging latitude for one day before migrating toward the equator? Do you distrust the calculator and require someone to be at that Tropic subsolar point and someone at a point on the Tropic later or earlier in the day documenting that they are not experiencing a subpolar point before you can believe it?

If so, how does anyone "debate" that kind of epistemology? If you have some valid reason for discounting a calculator as documentation, then that's something worth debating. But you're not debating. You're just gainsaying for the sake of gainsaying without explaining why.

[Bobby Shafto]

Bobby, Dr Van Nostrand, other readers of this thread,

I am honestly seeking confirmation about the accuracy of these observations.  I have already identified and fixed my initial incorrect observations for #2 and #3.  I feel good about these but would love several more people to apply their criticism to ensure correctness.

1. on the equinox the sun traces a straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. on the northern solstice the sun is directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. on the southern solstice the sun is directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4.  on the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth.
5.  on the equinox, for all locations on the equator, the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west.

As we've been discussing, #2 and #3 are not correct. There is only one location on the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn for which the sun is directly overhead at solar noon.

What's the reason to break out #5 from #4?

[markjo]

Did timeanddate.com send agents to every point on earth to carefully document the activities and actions of the sun throughout the year?

No Tom.  Web sites like Timeanddate.com wrote a number of algorithms to calculate the actions of the sun and moon based on the round earth model and then presented their calculators to the public so that people all over the world could compare those calculations with their own real world observations.

There are even open source sunrise/sunset calculators that are available so that you can validate the calculations yourself.
http://www.java2s.com/Open-Source/Android_Free_Code/App/time/edu_rosehulman_sunrisesunsetSunriseSunsetCalculator_java.htm

[Tom Bishop]

But you have to have a reason for rejecting the proof offered.

Why is a calculator with a proven history of accuracy not acceptable?

Where is the proven history of accuracy in its elements?

Whenever we have asked in the last 10 years, there has been silence. That is reason enough to reject it.

[iamcpc]

Those are calculators, not documented observations.

True.

Up to you then to show where the calculator has failed to match an observation.

Or, if you can find counter documentation of a location on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21st other than that southern Egypt location where the sun was, in fact, directly overhead.

Good luck with that.

No. You need to show what observations, if any, that the calculator is based on. We have emailed timeanddate in the past and they refused to reveal their sources.

Did timeanddate.com send agents to every point on earth to carefully document the activities and actions of the sun throughout the year?

Manhattanhenge is a good example with hundreds of thousands of observations, pictures, and videos.

https://www.space.com/40639-the-story-of-manhattanhenge.html

There is a system in place which can accurately determine the days of the year in which the sunset lines up with with the streets of Manhattan.

suncalc.net is able to accurately predict the day that this will happen.

Another situation with hundreds of thousands of observations,pictures, and videos is the summer solstice at Stonehenge.

[Tom Bishop]

Manhattanhenge is a good example with hundreds of thousands of observations, pictures, and videos.

https://www.space.com/40639-the-story-of-manhattanhenge.html

There is a system in place which can accurately determine the days of the year in which the sunset lines up with with the streets of Manhattan.

suncalc.net is able to accurately predict the day that this will happen.

Another situation with hundreds of thousands of observations,pictures, and videos is the summer solstice at Stonehenge.

What pictures? What videos? What does the data and observations show the sun to be doing exactly?

You need to construct your case, and show that whatever is or is not being seen occurs world-wide, not wave your hands in the air and scream "There are videos!!!"

[Bobby Shafto]

This happens twice a year.



Photographers crowd the beach in anticipation, not because they're guessing but because they've got the date and time from a predictive calculator...which has always been spot on and never failed to predict its occurrence.

However that calculator works (pattern, algorithm), it works. I've yet to experience -- or hear of anyone experiencing -- a discrepancy.

[Tom Bishop]

We know that the sun sets a little more northward or southward throughout the year in a loop. That is also present in the basic FET model.

Is there anything else?

[MCToon]

Bobby, Dr Van Nostrand, other readers of this thread,

I am honestly seeking confirmation about the accuracy of these observations.  I have already identified and fixed my initial incorrect observations for #2 and #3.  I feel good about these but would love several more people to apply their criticism to ensure correctness.

1. on the equinox the sun traces a straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. on the northern solstice the sun is directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. on the southern solstice the sun is directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.
4.  on the equinox the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west for every location on the earth.
5.  on the equinox, for all locations on the equator, the sun rises almost exactly due east and sets almost exactly due west.

As we've been discussing, #2 and #3 are not correct. There is only one location on the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn for which the sun is directly overhead at solar noon.

What's the reason to break out #5 from #4?

Thanks, yes, I didn't quite phrase it correctly.  I also adjusted #1 similarly.  Additions in bold:

1. on the equinox the sun traces a very nearly straight line across the sky for every location on the equator.
2. on the northern solstice the sun is very nearly directly almost overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of cancer.
3. on the southern solstice the sun is very nearly directly overhead at solar noon for every location on the tropic of capricorn.

Initially when I was writing my thoughts on this I had several observations.  I removed the ones that didn't fit my desired criteria of easy to understand, simple to confirm, and well agreed upon by all parties.  #4 and #5 were separate in this list as I added them at different times.  I left them separate as #4 is a generalization of #5.  I want to be certain of the quality of these observations so I left them separate in case I'm not understanding #4 correctly and it's not accurate and have to be removed.  That would leave #5 as a separate item.

[Bobby Shafto]

I ask again:

Let me ask you this: in whatever flat earth "model" you choose, does the sun follow a path of the Tropic of the Cancer for one full day cycle? Because it doesn't in the globe earth model. It reaches the Tropic of Cancer for a moment and then begins to traverse back south in latitude. Only one location at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer experiences a solar noon of 90 degrees elevation.

Do you have reason to doubt that? Is it different for a flat earth? Does the sun not move gradually between the Tropics on a flat earth? Or does it transcribe a path at a single, unchanging latitude for one day before migrating toward the equator? Do you distrust the calculator and require someone to be at that Tropic subsolar point and someone at a point on the Tropic later or earlier in the day documenting that they are not experiencing a subpolar point before you can believe it?

You have an issue with how TimeandDate (or any such calculation) derives its output. Fine. But do you have reason to distrust the output or is it just its method that bothers you? If it's  just the latter, then what's the debate here? Is whether or not the whole of the Tropic of Cancer experiences a 90 degree overhead subsolar point a distinguishing feature of a flat earth vs a globe earth?

Trust me, if that's so, I will find a way to have that observed directly vice relying on TimeandDate. Somehow, I don't believe that will satisfy the debate because even on a flat earth it makes sense to me that solar noon only happens in one location on the Tropics during the solstice. So I don't understand what you're on about.

[iamcpc]

What pictures? What videos? What does the data and observations show the sun to be doing exactly?

You need to construct your case, and show that whatever is or is not being seen occurs world-wide, not wave your hands in the air and scream "There are videos!!!"

These pictures:

https://www.google.com/search?q=manhattanhenge&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM48yBntzdAhVQbK0KHYJ1DmwQ_AUIDigB&biw=2128&bih=1041

these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manhattanhenge


The data and observations show that the angle of the sunset lines up with the streets of manhattan twice a year on days that can be reliably predicted.



These pictures

https://www.google.com/search?q=stonehenge+summer+solstice&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzg_HgntzdAhXomq0KHTeQBacQ_AUIDigB&biw=2128&bih=1041

and these videos

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stonehenge+summer+solstice


The data and observations show that the angle of the sunset lines up the rocks of stonehenge on day that can be reliably predicted.

[iamcpc]

This happens twice a year.

Photographers crowd the beach in anticipation, not because they're guessing but because they've got the date and time from a predictive calculator...which has always been spot on and never failed to predict its occurrence.

However that calculator works (pattern, algorithm), it works. I've yet to experience -- or hear of anyone experiencing -- a discrepancy.

Do you have any documented evidence and observations for that? Since your claims you should be able to prove what the sun is doing. If photographers crowd the beach then there should be lots of documented evidence.

[Tom Bishop]

What pictures? What videos? What does the data and observations show the sun to be doing exactly?

You need to construct your case, and show that whatever is or is not being seen occurs world-wide, not wave your hands in the air and scream "There are videos!!!"

These pictures:

https://www.google.com/search?q=manhattanhenge&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM48yBntzdAhVQbK0KHYJ1DmwQ_AUIDigB&biw=2128&bih=1041

these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manhattanhenge


The data and observations show that the angle of the sunset lines up with the streets of manhattan twice a year on days that can be reliably predicted.



These pictures

https://www.google.com/search?q=stonehenge+summer+solstice&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzg_HgntzdAhXomq0KHTeQBacQ_AUIDigB&biw=2128&bih=1041

and these videos

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stonehenge+summer+solstice


The data and observations show that the angle of the sunset lines up the rocks of stonehenge on day that can be reliably predicted.

Great. Now how does this event in Manhatten support a Round Earth and no other model of the earth?

[Bobby Shafto]

This happens twice a year.

Photographers crowd the beach in anticipation, not because they're guessing but because they've got the date and time from a predictive calculator...which has always been spot on and never failed to predict its occurrence.

However that calculator works (pattern, algorithm), it works. I've yet to experience -- or hear of anyone experiencing -- a discrepancy.

Do you have any documented evidence and observations for that? Since your claims you should be able to prove what the sun is doing. If photographers crowd the beach then there should be lots of documented evidence.

Next occurrence, according to the predicted sunset bearing output of TimeandDate.com are the sunsets on May 1st and 2nd occurring at 7:30pm local. 

Whether permitting (and assuming I'm still interested in this site or haven't lost my permission to post), I'll document both the occurrence and the crowd.

Will I have to document that my documentation is authenticate and unaltered?
Do I need to provide evidence that my clock is calibrated or that the location is accurate?

Here's another neat occurrence that is reliable predictable:

[iamcpc]

What pictures? What videos? What does the data and observations show the sun to be doing exactly?

You need to construct your case, and show that whatever is or is not being seen occurs world-wide, not wave your hands in the air and scream "There are videos!!!"

These pictures:

https://www.google.com/search?q=manhattanhenge&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM48yBntzdAhVQbK0KHYJ1DmwQ_AUIDigB&biw=2128&bih=1041

these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manhattanhenge


The data and observations show that the angle of the sunset lines up with the streets of manhattan twice a year on days that can be reliably predicted.



These pictures

https://www.google.com/search?q=stonehenge+summer+solstice&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS755US755&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzg_HgntzdAhXomq0KHTeQBacQ_AUIDigB&biw=2128&bih=1041

and these videos

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stonehenge+summer+solstice


The data and observations show that the angle of the sunset lines up the rocks of stonehenge on day that can be reliably predicted.

Great. Now how does this event in Manhatten support a Round Earth and no other model of the earth?

I never claimed that observed sun events support any predicted shape of the earth.

We were talking about a flat earth map and agreed sun positions which are independent of the shape of the earth. I had presented a map of the infinite repeating plane flat earth model which corroborates known sun positions/observations and accurately predicts future sun observations (such as stonehenge, manhattanhenge). You asked for documentation so I provided it to you.

[Bobby Shafto]

Great. Now how does this event in Manhatten support a Round Earth and no other model of the earth?

That's not the point of this topic, and certainly not the point of critique of map parameters for which you require documentation.