*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #220 on: April 25, 2018, 05:07:40 PM »
Equinox is just the sun passing the equatorial plane, its not a fixed point.
Right. And there’s nothing in that definition requiring it to occur after a whole number of 365 solar day rotations of the earth. The extra 0.24 hours don’t “come out of nowhere.” That event doesn’t occur at the same moment every 365 solar says. It happens about 6 hours later every year.

And as Macharios says, (I think) the calendar we use for convention’s sake ignores those “extra hours” for a few years even though celestially the equinox is shifted. Rather than adjust yearly, incrementally, we let it go, accounting for those extra hours with a whole day adjustment every 4 years to realign. But the sun and earth don’t wait for man’s calendar. If we didn’t adjust, our calendars would fall behind because of those “extra hours” and after awhile, we’d notice the seasons weren’t right.

The equinox shifts 6 hours a year?

The equinox's variation occurs with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years. The shift takes a very long time. At the moment The Equinox is aligned with the constellation of Pisces, and we are moving into the "Age of Aquarius." The time between Zodiac points is about 2,150 years.

The Sun needs to get back to the point of the Equinox under the definition of a Solar Year. It has to match up with the Solar Day.
First sentence, I agree. It “needs to” for the definition to be true.

But what I’m not getting is why you think the second sentence is a “has to” situation and, if it doesn’t, it’s a problem.

It clearly doesn’t meet your “has to” expectation since Equinox occurrence slides later by about 5.8 “extra hours” each year, and would keep sliding forward into the calendar year if we didn’t add a day to the calendar every four years.

I’m not picking up on why this is a problem. Solar days don’t “have to” fit neatly  and non-fractionally into the solar year. Not in reality, and not by definition.

The Equinox shifts with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years, due to the movement of the Galaxy.

Why is it shifting 6 hours a year? What kind of Galaxy do we live in?

Now, would you care to point out where *anywhere* uses a whole number of solar days to define a solar year? Or where *anywhere* even suggests this should be the case? Other than your misintepretation of something, or not reading something fully, nothing suggests this but you. You are completely alone in suggestion there must be a whole number of solar days in a solar year. (remember, a calendar year =/= a solar year)

There are 24 hours in a Solar Day. There are 354.24 Solar Days in a Solar Year.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year we read

Quote
The mean tropical year in 2000 was 365.24219 ephemeris days; each ephemeris day lasting 86,400 SI seconds.[1] This is 365.24217 mean solar days (Richards 2013, p. 587).

The Solar Year is defined at the moment where sun intersects the Equinox, which only occurs twice a year (March Equinox and September Equinox). The Time between one March Equinox to the next March Equinox is 354.24 Solar Days, with incredibly slight variation at decimal points beyond that.

Where do the extra hours come from?

The Equinox moves 6 hours in a year? The Equinox moves due to the rotation of the Galaxy, and a quarter rotation of the Equinox takes many eons.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 05:21:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #221 on: April 25, 2018, 05:16:16 PM »
Tom, we're up to 12 pages now, and as far as I can see, there's NOBODY who even slightly agrees with you.

Don't you think this might be telling you .... something?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #222 on: April 25, 2018, 05:22:04 PM »
Now, would you care to point out where *anywhere* uses a whole number of solar days to define a solar year? Or where *anywhere* even suggests this should be the case? Other than your misintepretation of something, or not reading something fully, nothing suggests this but you. You are completely alone in suggestion there must be a whole number of solar days in a solar year. (remember, a calendar year =/= a solar year)

There are 24 hours in a Solar Day. There are 354.24 Solar Days in a Solar Year.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year we read

Quote
The mean tropical year in 2000 was 365.24219 ephemeris days; each ephemeris day lasting 86,400 SI seconds.[1] This is 365.24217 mean solar days (Richards 2013, p. 587).

The Solar Year is defined where the celestial equator of the sun intersects with the equinox, which only occurs twice a year (March Equinox and September Equinox). The Time between one March Equinox to the next March Equinox is 354.24 Solar Days, with incredibly slight variation at decimal points beyond that.

Where do the extra hours come from?

The Equinox moves 6 hours in a year? The Equinox moves due to the rotation of the Galaxy, and a quarter rotation of the Equinox takes many eons.
That's not an answer to my question. Nothing there says a solar year is an integer multiple of solar days. It in fact explicitly defines it as NOT being such. Still not seeing the problem here. A solar year and a solar day have nothing to do with one another. One is in no way dependent on the other. A solar year happens. A solar day happens. We can subdivide a solar year by the number of solar days, but there's no guarantee of an integer value.

The Equinox is 6 hours different from the last one, according to our clocks, which are based around the timing of the solar day. They care nothing about the duration of a solar year. Looking at the background stars, the equinox is far more regular.

Once again. Show me anywhere that states a solar year should be evenly divisible by a solar day, or indeed that they have any mathematical correlation that must result in an integer. They are based upon two separate occurrences, that have no need, nor even reason, to be related. You appear to be the only one claiming they have to be, but have yet to present any evidence that indicates they should be, beyond things you apparently cannot be bothered to fully read.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #223 on: April 25, 2018, 05:53:38 PM »
Equinox is just the sun passing the equatorial plane, its not a fixed point.
Right. And there’s nothing in that definition requiring it to occur after a whole number of 365 solar day rotations of the earth. The extra 0.24 hours don’t “come out of nowhere.” That event doesn’t occur at the same moment every 365 solar says. It happens about 6 hours later every year.

And as Macharios says, (I think) the calendar we use for convention’s sake ignores those “extra hours” for a few years even though celestially the equinox is shifted. Rather than adjust yearly, incrementally, we let it go, accounting for those extra hours with a whole day adjustment every 4 years to realign. But the sun and earth don’t wait for man’s calendar. If we didn’t adjust, our calendars would fall behind because of those “extra hours” and after awhile, we’d notice the seasons weren’t right.

The equinox shifts 6 hours a year?

The equinox's variation occurs with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years. The shift takes a very long time. At the moment The Equinox is aligned with the constellation of Pisces, and we are moving into the "Age of Aquarius." The time between Zodiac points is about 2,150 years.

The Sun needs to get back to the point of the Equinox under the definition of a Solar Year. It has to match up with the Solar Day.
First sentence, I agree. It “needs to” for the definition to be true.

But what I’m not getting is why you think the second sentence is a “has to” situation and, if it doesn’t, it’s a problem.

It clearly doesn’t meet your “has to” expectation since Equinox occurrence slides later by about 5.8 “extra hours” each year, and would keep sliding forward into the calendar year if we didn’t add a day to the calendar every four years.

I’m not picking up on why this is a problem. Solar days don’t “have to” fit neatly  and non-fractionally into the solar year. Not in reality, and not by definition.

The Equinox shifts with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years, due to the movement of the Galaxy.

Why is it shifting 6 hours a year? What kind of Galaxy do we live in?

Now, would you care to point out where *anywhere* uses a whole number of solar days to define a solar year? Or where *anywhere* even suggests this should be the case? Other than your misintepretation of something, or not reading something fully, nothing suggests this but you. You are completely alone in suggestion there must be a whole number of solar days in a solar year. (remember, a calendar year =/= a solar year)

There are 24 hours in a Solar Day. There are 354.24 Solar Days in a Solar Year.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year we read

Quote
The mean tropical year in 2000 was 365.24219 ephemeris days; each ephemeris day lasting 86,400 SI seconds.[1] This is 365.24217 mean solar days (Richards 2013, p. 587).

The Solar Year is defined at the moment where sun intersects the Equinox, which only occurs twice a year (March Equinox and September Equinox). The Time between one March Equinox to the next March Equinox is 354.24 Solar Days, with incredibly slight variation at decimal points beyond that.

Where do the extra hours come from?

The Equinox moves 6 hours in a year? The Equinox moves due to the rotation of the Galaxy, and a quarter rotation of the Equinox takes many eons.

Yes, equinoxes do, in fact, "get delayed" by 6 hours every year.

Quote
Where do the extra hours come from?

Didn't you start this thread to prove that days don't fit into one year? That's the reason exactly why equinoxes shift (see the image below).


(Not mine, click to visit)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 06:02:13 PM by Stagiri »
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #224 on: April 25, 2018, 05:57:28 PM »
Tom, we're up to 12 pages now, and as far as I can see, there's NOBODY who even slightly agrees with you.

Don't you think this might be telling you .... something?
Not quite true. I agreed with him when he said that 360 divides exactly by 24. I didn’t agree with him if he thought there was any significance in that.

I think the trouble here is Tom seems to think that the number of rotations the earth makes as it orbits the sun should be an integer. But it isn’t and there is no reason why it should.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #225 on: April 25, 2018, 06:37:04 PM »

The equinox shifts 6 hours a year?

The equinox's variation occurs with a rotation of about once every 25,772 years. The shift takes a very long time. At the moment The Equinox is aligned with the constellation of Pisces, and we are moving into the "Age of Aquarius." The time between Zodiac points is about 2,150 years.
You are still trying to decipher where the "extra hours" in the solar year come from, right? So you need to talk apples and apples. The variation you're speaking of there has to do with movement of equinox along the plane of earth's orbit, aka the ecliptic. That's oranges. The apples are the yearly shift in time when the equinox occurs from an earth perspective, and that is just under 6 hours each year. As in about 1/4 of a 24 hour day. That's where you're "extra hours" are coming from.

If you've moved on from that new "problem" too and are talking now about something else dealing with the cyclic precession of the earth's rotational axis, I apologize. But it seems to me you're getting yourself wound around the axle, trying to work in all the complex motions of earth's rotation and orbit to understand the simple notion that the earth doesn't rotate a whole number of days during the course of one orbit around the sun. That's all the extra hours are is that those two parameters (solar day and solar year) aren't integrated as a whole number.

Forget the 25K year precession cycle. It has nothing (very little) to do with the so-called "problem" you think you've identified.

The Salon article you linked was pretty good, I thought. Cheeky explanation of what can be a confusing subject, I know. Your first problem (which apparently wasn't resolved to your satisfaction) was why at the exact halfway point of a solar year, NYC isn't oriented toward the sun as you presumed it should be. Your second was the "mystery" of where the "extra hours" came from in a solar year. Both of those questions are addressed in the Salon article pretty well. You may not like that it "doesn't fit" in an orderly way, but the universe doesn't conform to how we wish we could measure and quantify. We choose from nature what we want to use as a standard reference, and if we find that there's variation or deviation from what we thought, we either have to adjust our methods or pick a new standard. We can't expect the universe to conform to what we think would make calculations easier or more aesthetically ordered.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #226 on: April 25, 2018, 07:25:30 PM »
In 2016, the March equinox occurred at 04:30 (UTC) on March 20th.

Start the clock. Start the calendar.

The earth keeps rotating and begins its orbital trek around the sun. 365 days after we've started our clock, we approached 04:30 UTC on March 20th, 2017. The earth had rotated 365 times in relation to the sun (366 times in relation to the stars) during that trek. But the earth hasn't reached the same spot in its orbit as it was when we started the clock. It still has a little ways to go.

So the earth keeps spinning and we don't hit the equinox point (plane) until 10:28 UTC on March 20th, 2017. It doesn't change anything as far as our clocks are concerned. It still feels like 10:28 (or whatever time zone you're in). But the time of day of reaching that orbital spot has gotten later by almost 6 hours. We note it, but the earth is still spinning on its axis and we keep the clock rolling and keep ticking off the calendar  as we start a new trip around the sun.

Another year passes and we confront the same situation as before. It's now March 20th, 2018, but the time of equinox is later in the day, again. Now it's 16:15 UTC. Same reason as before. The earth hasn't completed a full orbit in exactly 365 calendar days and still needs to finish the last bit of that orbit. But the earth keeps rotating and a little under 6 hours, we reach the equinox.

That's two trips around the sun and we've seen the equinox slip 11 hrs and 30 minutes. It isn't a set time difference each time. It varies, but it's within a range of 5 1/2 to 6 hours. But still we roll with it, start the trip around the sun again. On March 20th, 2019, the equinox arrives 21:58 UTC. Same reason. Same approximate time slippage.

A fourth trip around the sun produces yet another slippage in the time of equinox. It's now occurring at 03:50 UTC. But what day? If we didn't input a "leap day" sometime prior, the equinox would fall on 03:50 21 March (UTC). But we do, adding a day to February 2020 and catch the calendar up all in one fell swoop. We basically add 24 "extra hours" to make up for the fact that our calendar had slipped 23 hrs and 40 mins over the previous 4 orbits around the sun, using the equinox as a marker.

It's not perfect because we haven't restored the equinox to the exact minute that it was back in 2016, but that variance takes much longer to matter to our calendar date keeping. But those ~6 "extra hours" per year are simply due to the fact that the solar day DOESN'T "fit" into the solar year as a whole integer. The earth's rotation isn't perfectly matched with the earth's orbit about the sun. We complete the 365 solar rotations (or 366 sidereal rotations) just a little short of 1 full orbit about the sun.

And yes, there are other factors that affect the calculus, but those are less impacting on our annual calendars as is the mismatch of solar day with solar year. Precession, wobble, drag...some of those effects take centuries, millenia or eons to matter, phenomenological. They do matter to astronomers who must be precise, but not to our daily calendar life. Those "extra hours" do matter to us regular folks because we'd notice that seasons would appear to gradually shift during the calendar if we didn't make those "leaping" adjustments.

It would be nice and tidy if we didn't have to worry about those adjustments and the time piece of the sun/earth was tuned for our convenience. But it's not, and it doesn't have to be. We get "extra hours" in a solar year because of that and they don't appear out of nowhere.

Macarios

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #227 on: April 25, 2018, 09:37:02 PM »
This is how our calendar based on counting solar days misses the orbital events like solstices and equinoxes,
and how we adjust our calendar every 4 years to make it as close as possible to those events:

http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/soleq2001.html

Pay attention to 2004, 2008, 2012...
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 09:38:53 PM by Macarios »

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #228 on: April 25, 2018, 10:59:27 PM »
What I am hearing is that the Solar Day does not match up to a Solar year that starts and stops on the Equinox. You are calling the two are "arbitrarily" in relation to each other. But the March and September Equinoxes are at a certain point on the earth's path around the sun. The earth will be in the same physical position looking at the sun.

If the Solar day at the start of the day is over New York City, it must end on New York City.

The Equinox only varies over eons, as the Equinox and Solstice lines in the below diagram rotates according to the Precession of the Equinoxes at a period of 25,772 years.



See the diagram above. The Solar Day has to be the same when the earth returns back to the same Equinox point in relation to the sun. It's looking at the sun at the same position.

Why is the Solar Day not the same? What is causing the variance?
The diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.

You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #229 on: April 25, 2018, 11:12:17 PM »
I was editing my post and lost one. Here it is again. I added on to it at the bottom.

What I am hearing is that the Solar Day does not match up to a Solar year that starts and stops on the Equinox. You are calling the two are "arbitrarily" in relation to each other. But the March and September Equinoxes are at a certain point on the earth's path around the sun. The earth will be in the same physical position looking at the sun.

If the Solar day at the start of the day is over New York City, it must end on New York City.

The Equinox only varies over eons, as the Equinox and Solstice lines in the below diagram rotates according to the Precession of the Equinoxes at a period of 25,772 years.



See the diagram above. The Solar Day has to be the same when the earth returns back to the same Equinox point in relation to the sun. It's looking at the sun at the same position.

Why is the Solar Day not the same? What is causing the variance?

Go here:

http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/coordsmotion/siderealSolarTime.html

« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 01:29:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #230 on: April 26, 2018, 01:19:23 AM »
The diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.

You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.

Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.

If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #231 on: April 26, 2018, 01:29:12 AM »
The diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.

You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.

Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.

If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?
Because the total difference over the entire year, is just 6 hours? I would note, even this simulation isn't exact. Look at the times of the equionoxes here if you wish. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.html

12 hour difference from sidreal, - 3 hour difference from half the year rotation offset. Bam, the time of the opposite equinox or solstice. Actually doesn't look quite right for the solstice, just the equinox. Interesting. Not sure why, would have to look a bit more.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #232 on: April 26, 2018, 01:58:54 AM »
The diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.

You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.

Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.

If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?
Because the total difference over the entire year, is just 6 hours? I would note, even this simulation isn't exact. Look at the times of the equionoxes here if you wish. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.html

12 hour difference from sidreal, - 3 hour difference from half the year rotation offset. Bam, the time of the opposite equinox or solstice. Actually doesn't look quite right for the solstice, just the equinox. Interesting. Not sure why, would have to look a bit more.

Are you saying that the Astronomy Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln got Round Earth Astronomy wrong, and that you know better than them?

Their simulation is clearly showing that Solar Time is related to the Equinoxes and Solstices of the year. It is not arbitrary. The sun needs to return to its same position above the earth after 1 year.

Your TimeandDate.com link isn't showing Solar Time, and isn't based on the Solar Year. It's showing in PDT for me and it says the Year is based on the The Gregorian Calendar. This is unlike the Solar Day and the Solar Year. There does not seem to be a way on that page to change it to Solar Day and Solar Year.

As an aside point, TimeandDate has been discredited on this forum because we emailed them and they refused to answer on whether they were using prediction models that were based on Round Earth Theory or on observed patterns and trends, citing proprietary data.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #233 on: April 26, 2018, 02:52:13 AM »

Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.

If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?
That’s a teaching tool to demonstrate the relationship between solar and sidereal days. It’s using generic times and isn’t accounting for the extra .24 of a day. Hard to manipulate on mobile, but it resets at the vernal equinox at exactly 356 solar days and 366 sidereal days.

It’s not a calculator for actual equinox and solstice times. It’s for illustrating the concept to students. It ought to help you resolve the question you had had the opening of this topic. But I can understand why it might be confusing in trying to understand the relationship of solar days to solar years. It wasn’t coded for that.

Look at it for what it is intended: a simplified interactive illustration of the solar/sidereal relationship concept.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #234 on: April 26, 2018, 03:03:38 AM »
I would note, even this simulation isn't exact. Look at the times of the equionoxes here if you wish. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.html
It’s not exact because that’s not what it’s meant to be. Actual equinox and solstice times vary year to year. This is generic.

It’s a nice aid for demonstrating how solar days and sidereal days are related. But the times are purely representative and not actual or predictive. And unfortunately for explaining to Tom how solar days don’t fit as whole integers into a solar year, or show how the time of vernal equinox varies from year to year, it wasn’t coded for that. It shows a single solar year divided crisply into 365 solar days and 366 sidereal days with the earth returning to the same spot in its orbit around the sun. That’s what Tom thinks should be true of a globe earth/sun model if it were reality. but the solar year, equinox and earth rotations aren’t synchronized that way. The animation is simplified for the introductory student.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 03:05:26 AM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #235 on: April 26, 2018, 04:57:32 AM »
The diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.

You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.

Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.

If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?
Because the total difference over the entire year, is just 6 hours? I would note, even this simulation isn't exact. Look at the times of the equionoxes here if you wish. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.html

12 hour difference from sidreal, - 3 hour difference from half the year rotation offset. Bam, the time of the opposite equinox or solstice. Actually doesn't look quite right for the solstice, just the equinox. Interesting. Not sure why, would have to look a bit more.

Are you saying that the Astronomy Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln got Round Earth Astronomy wrong, and that you know better than them?

Their simulation is clearly showing that Solar Time is related to the Equinoxes and Solstices of the year. It is not arbitrary. The sun needs to return to its same position above the earth after 1 year.

Your TimeandDate.com link isn't showing Solar Time, and isn't based on the Solar Year. It's showing in PDT for me and it says the Year is based on the The Gregorian Calendar. This is unlike the Solar Day and the Solar Year. There does not seem to be a way on that page to change it to Solar Day and Solar Year.

As an aside point, TimeandDate has been discredited on this forum because we emailed them and they refused to answer on whether they were using prediction models that were based on Round Earth Theory or on observed patterns and trends, citing proprietary data.
I'm saying, as is Bobby, that this tool is not designed with what you are expecting of it in mind. It's a simple tool to show the difference between solar days and sidereal days. Nothing more. You really need to actually look at the tools you're going to use and make sure they fit the purpose you want out of them Tom. It's a failing of yours.

I'm not pointing out solar time here. I'm showing you how the equinoxes vary from year to year. Solar day = Calendar day. Do you see how the timing of the equinoxes and solstices vary each year by about 6 hours? Due to the fact a solar year is not an exact number of solar days?

To your aside, I was part of that discussion. You decided it was discredited for the purposes of it's sunrise/sunset times being based on a RE model, NOT that the site was 100% false. Stop attempting to pull the wool over peoples eyes with dishonesty. It's unbecoming. This information can be found many other places if you wish to check it against what is listed there as well. The information the site presents is accurate, but it's not for sure if it's based on observational data, a round Earth model, or something else entirely. You may claim the sunrise/set times can't be trusted all you want as well, but this isn't one of them. Feel free to fact check if you feel so inclined, but until you can provide evidence the information is incorrect (and not just that we don't know how they get it, that's not showing the information is incorrect) my own experience is their information is spot on. Confirmed by friends and family around the globe, as well as our resident seafarer as mentioned in another thread.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #236 on: April 26, 2018, 05:46:47 AM »
Dear Mr. Bishop,
Why are you surprised and deny that equinoxes delay? Didn't you start this thread with the intention to prove that they delay in the GE model? Didn't your own calculations confirm that? Have you forgotten your own opinions or do you disregard them intentionally?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #237 on: April 26, 2018, 05:51:18 AM »
The diagram is not an exact representation of everything Tom. Don't get caught up in it please. If that's where this entire issue arises we might have bigger problems. There's a reason the equinoxes and the solstices vary from year to year. They are not exactly on the same time every year. Do you know why that is? The answer to that question is the same as yours, and it's because the Earth's rotation around it's axis, and the Earth's orbit around the sun are not related. One is not dependent on the other. They happen to match up quite well, but it's pure coincidence.

You're right though, the March and September equinoxes happen at about the same time every year. Because of leap year. Without leap year, as mentioned a number of times now, seasons would eventually flip based on the calendar month. This is why we have leap year, so that doesn't happen. The Earth isn't changing it's orbit, or it's rotation. We're changing how we track both of these things in order to keep things similar to what everyone expects.

Look at the second animated image I added above. Solar Time returns to the same position after one year when it returns to the Equinox it started on. The Solar Time is opposite on the opposite Equinox. The Solstices are opposites too.

If there is a difference over the year and the Solar Day is just arbitrarily related to the year, why are there exact opposites?
Because the total difference over the entire year, is just 6 hours? I would note, even this simulation isn't exact. Look at the times of the equionoxes here if you wish. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/seasons.html

12 hour difference from sidreal, - 3 hour difference from half the year rotation offset. Bam, the time of the opposite equinox or solstice. Actually doesn't look quite right for the solstice, just the equinox. Interesting. Not sure why, would have to look a bit more.

Are you saying that the Astronomy Department at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln got Round Earth Astronomy wrong, and that you know better than them?

Their simulation is clearly showing that Solar Time is related to the Equinoxes and Solstices of the year. (...)

Or could it be that, just like the FE "map", that simulation is meant to be only illustrative?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #238 on: April 26, 2018, 06:23:36 AM »
I was editing my post and lost one. Here it is again. I added on to it at the bottom.

What I am hearing is that the Solar Day does not match up to a Solar year that starts and stops on the Equinox. You are calling the two are "arbitrarily" in relation to each other. But the March and September Equinoxes are at a certain point on the earth's path around the sun. The earth will be in the same physical position looking at the sun.

If the Solar day at the start of the day is over New York City, it must end on New York City.

The Equinox only varies over eons, as the Equinox and Solstice lines in the below diagram rotates according to the Precession of the Equinoxes at a period of 25,772 years.



See the diagram above. The Solar Day has to be the same when the earth returns back to the same Equinox point in relation to the sun. It's looking at the sun at the same position.

Why is the Solar Day not the same? What is causing the variance?

Go here:

http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/coordsmotion/siderealSolarTime.html



Dear Tom

You owe me about 30 mins of my life.

That's the roughly 30 mins I have wasted on this childish joke of yours over the last few days.




*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« Reply #239 on: April 26, 2018, 08:43:39 AM »
See the diagram above. The Solar Day has to be the same when the earth returns back to the same Equinox point in relation to the sun. It's looking at the sun at the same position.

The diagrams you cite here, and at the beginning of the thread, are both approximations, not exactnesses (!).

They're intended to show a high-level, general principle of how things work. They have no data, they are merely illustrative. I'll say that again - they have no low-level data (numbers 'n' stuff). 

For actual data, you need to look at astronomical textbooks, papers, journals, etc. and see how astronomers of the past figured this stuff out from first principles and their observations.

 I'm sure the data, from year upon year upon year of actual observation, is out there to be found, but you won't find it from skimming webpages and lifting diagrams from those pages intended for student or general public audiences.

It will be in the work done by astronomers of university level or beyond. You may need to do some groundwork to find it. It will most likely be in real books, in libraries, and you may need to expend some effort to find it, including asking librarians to retrieve little-used tomes from dusty, remote archives. 

Are you willing to do this?

Or is it truly beyond the scope of the 30 mins per day that you devote to this field? If so, just say so.

-
-
-
-
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?