The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: GiantTurtle on November 08, 2017, 02:11:55 PM
-
In FET the sun casts light in a circle beneath it.
However on the equinox each point on earth is in daylight for exactly 12 hours a day.
That would require the sun to on average light half of the earth at any given moment.
The wiki shows the sun casting light in a circle of half the diameter of the earth which only lights a quarter of the earth at once and lights the inner parts much longer than the outer.
What is the correct shape of the light that the sun casts?
-
The zetetic method involves looking at every possibility and evaluating it to find the truth: feel free to add to my humble list of options;
Maybe the sun moves quicker on the equinox, instantaneously swapping between the zones to ensure each gets the 12 hours we see.
Although it has to move at the constant speed that we see so we'd have to factor this in to make it work.
Also we still get sunrise and sunset so it has to move quickly between the zones to give each 12 hours but yet slow enough to produce the gradual diminishment/emergence we see.
Maybe the suns ray are more intense and it angles its rays differently so that although appearing to move at the same speed it is able to send its rays of light ahead of it. Maybe the spotlight splits into multiple spotlights so that it can send its light wherever it's needed to give us the light we see whilst still appearing to be moving at its steady pace in east to west motion. Although why would the sun do this twice a year and why don't see these extra beams of light and how would it look from the area that is getting these "advance" sun beams before the sun rises?
Maybe the earth is a globe.
-
The zetetic method involves looking at every possibility and evaluating it to find the truth: feel free to add to my humble list of options;
Maybe the sun moves quicker on the equinox, instantaneously swapping between the zones to ensure each gets the 12 hours we see.
Although it has to move at the constant speed that we see so we'd have to factor this in to make it work.
Also we still get sunrise and sunset so it has to move quickly between the zones to give each 12 hours but yet slow enough to produce the gradual diminishment/emergence we see.
Maybe the suns ray are more intense and it angles its rays differently so that although appearing to move at the same speed it is able to send its rays of light ahead of it. Maybe the spotlight splits into multiple spotlights so that it can send its light wherever it's needed to give us the light we see whilst still appearing to be moving at its steady pace in east to west motion. Although why would the sun do this twice a year and why don't see these extra beams of light and how would it look from the area that is getting these "advance" sun beams before the sun rises?
Maybe the earth is a globe.
You've watched too many NASA videos. Unfortunately, CGI is getting better and it is too late for your poor soul
-
You've watched too many NASA videos. Unfortunately, CGI is getting better and it is too late for your poor soul
If you are going to pin the CGI thing on NASA, how do you explain the videos they showed on TV in the 1960's when computers used punch cards and magnetic tape?
-
You've watched too many NASA videos. Unfortunately, CGI is getting better and it is too late for your poor soul
If you are going to pin the CGI thing on NASA, how do you explain the videos they showed on TV in the 1960's when computers used punch cards and magnetic tape?
Tools like Photoshop are just digital equivalents to what has been available in an artist's studio for many years. The tools within the programs simulate what a studio has. It's a poor man's art studio.
-
You've watched too many NASA videos. Unfortunately, CGI is getting better and it is too late for your poor soul
If you are going to pin the CGI thing on NASA, how do you explain the videos they showed on TV in the 1960's when computers used punch cards and magnetic tape?
Tools like Photoshop are just digital equivalents to what has been available in an artist's studio for many years. The tools within the programs simulate what a studio has. It's a poor man's art studio.
Incorrect.
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
-
Tools like Photoshop are just digital equivalents to what has been available in an artist's studio for many years. The tools within the programs simulate what a studio has. It's a poor man's art studio.
Just when I think these arguments can't get any more ridiculous. Photoshop capabilities existed before Photoshop and places on Earth don't get equal amounts of day&night on the Equinox.
Do you feel better about your belief system to respond even when responding with utter nonsense?
-
Tools like Photoshop are just digital equivalents to what has been available in an artist's studio for many years. The tools within the programs simulate what a studio has. It's a poor man's art studio.
Just when I think these arguments can't get any more ridiculous. Photoshop capabilities existed before Photoshop and places on Earth don't get equal amounts of day&night on the Equinox.
Do you feel better about your belief system to respond even when responding with utter nonsense?
Are you asserting that Adobe Photoshop is the original creator of the concepts of erasers, paint brushes, slicing, blurring, masking, dodging, and field of view warping?
-
You've watched too many NASA videos. Unfortunately, CGI is getting better and it is too late for your poor soul
What the heck has NASA got to do with this question?????
-
Are you asserting that Adobe Photoshop is the original creator of the concepts of erasers, paint brushes, slicing, blurring, masking, dodging, and field of view warping?
Have you ever watched a film from the 60's-70's with "special effects" seriously Tom they wouldn't convince a child, the advent of modern CGI sure they are realistic so yes in that respect Photoshop would have the first time these mass produced high quality fakes could have been made.
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
That information is accurate, as you found out for your location.
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
But your claim is that these are incorrect?
-
Have you ever watched a film from the 60's-70's with "special effects" seriously Tom they wouldn't convince a child
Their alleged space ships look like they were built by a child (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander), so they are in good company.
-
Part of me is wondering if you are just trolling about fake-NASA to distract from the original question.
How does this have anything to do with space travel?
-
Part of me is wondering if you are just trolling about fake-NASA to distract from the original question.
How does this have anything to do with space travel?
I personally found the question to be rather uninteresting. We get the same question all the time. Here are some examples on how this topic will proceed:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6588.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6498.msg121460#msg121460
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6919.msg125884#msg125884
-
This is a different question to all three linked,
I'm not asking about the temperature, distances or direction of sun rise and set.
-
Here are some examples on how this topic will proceed:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6588.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6498.msg121460#msg121460
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6919.msg125884#msg125884
Incorrect. These are some other examples of you failing to answer similar questions.
Sorry Tom you come across as a nice guy but if you're the best Flat earth has got its no wonder you guys are not taken seriously.
I don't know what your purpose here is but if its recruiting people to flat earth you're very bad at it. If its having a laugh or reconfirming your own views I guess you are doing great. My own view is that you are a round earther who loves this mass debate.
The OP is about how the sun achieves 12 hours of daylight across the entire earth on the equinox. Ready for an answer on that whenever you are good sir!
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
And before I showed they were making calculations, you complained it was pattern-based and didn't do anything. If it is using calculations, it hurts even further the credibility of FET because the software treats Earth as a globe.
-
Here are some examples on how this topic will proceed:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6588.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6498.msg121460#msg121460
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6919.msg125884#msg125884
Incorrect. These are some other examples of you failing to answer similar questions.
Sorry Tom you come across as a nice guy but if you're the best Flat earth has got its no wonder you guys are not taken seriously.
I don't know what your purpose here is but if its recruiting people to flat earth you're very bad at it. If its having a laugh or reconfirming your own views I guess you are doing great. My own view is that you are a round earther who loves this mass debate.
The OP is about how the sun achieves 12 hours of daylight across the entire earth on the equinox. Ready for an answer on that whenever you are good sir!
I believe that I already asked for records of this claim and nothing was provided. Do we really need to go through 8 pages of me asking for evidence of this?
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
And before I showed they were making calculations, you complained it was pattern-based and didn't do anything. If it is using calculations, it hurts even further the credibility of FET because the software treats Earth as a globe.
If you know the pattern, you can make a calculator out of it.
-
Here are some examples on how this topic will proceed:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6588.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6498.msg121460#msg121460
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6919.msg125884#msg125884
Incorrect. These are some other examples of you failing to answer similar questions.
Sorry Tom you come across as a nice guy but if you're the best Flat earth has got its no wonder you guys are not taken seriously.
I don't know what your purpose here is but if its recruiting people to flat earth you're very bad at it. If its having a laugh or reconfirming your own views I guess you are doing great. My own view is that you are a round earther who loves this mass debate.
The OP is about how the sun achieves 12 hours of daylight across the entire earth on the equinox. Ready for an answer on that whenever you are good sir!
I believe that I already asked for records of this claim and nothing was provided. Do we really need to go through 8 pages of me asking for evidence of this?
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
And before I showed they were making calculations, you complained it was pattern-based and didn't do anything. If it is using calculations, it hurts even further the credibility of FET because the software treats Earth as a globe.
If you know the pattern, you can make a calculator out of it.
And if you know a pattern, make a calculator, and that calculator makes accurate predictions over a long period of time through out the area it's supposed to predict for, then I'd say whoever made the calculator had a pretty idea of what was going on.
Can you make a calculator for FE to predict anything?
If not I'd say you don't really have room to talk in a dismissive tone about it.
-
If you know the pattern, you can make a calculator out of it.
And if that was what the software did, you'd be correct. But, as I showed, with plenty of documentation, that is not what was happening. If the software supported FET, you'd accept it without a second thought. (as shown by my UA debunk post, lol)
-
Light stops after exactly 13 hours 12 minutes 67 seconds 78 milliseconds and 3.7 microseconds, and 43297 pentoseconds. the sun essentially takes a nap.
Have a few days off, review the rules, and feel free to come back and try again after.
-
I believe that I already asked for records of this claim and nothing was provided. Do we really need to go through 8 pages of me asking for evidence of this?
I cannot find a record, only calculators.
But as I asked, is your claim that these are incorrect predictions? How long do you think a day lasts on the equinox?
I verified that it was correct from my location last night and this morning you are free to do the same. I'm sure as the discrepancy between their predictions and your model is a 12 hour day as opposed to a 6 hour day they would have noticed.
-
I believe that I already asked for records of this claim and nothing was provided. Do we really need to go through 8 pages of me asking for evidence of this?
I cannot find a record, only calculators.
But as I asked, is your claim that these are incorrect predictions? How long do you think a day lasts on the equinox?
I verified that it was correct from my location last night and this morning you are free to do the same. I'm sure as the discrepancy between their predictions and your model is a 12 hour day as opposed to a 6 hour day they would have noticed.
I haven't been at every point along the equator, or everywhere on earth on the equinox to have that information. Have you?
This is an assertion that you brought here to this forum. I asked for records of this phenomenon you claim to exist. That was not something I claimed to happen. It is something that you claim happens. Is it not reasonable to ask for some kind of evidence of the phenomena put fourth?
I have an idea that will save us a lot of time. How about this: Just write up a response to this message in a notepad. Then imagine that my response is me inquiring about the evidence for these happenings. Do a Select-All on your content and press the Backspace key. Next write up another attempt at convincing us why evidence isn't necessary and your claims should be taken as fact. Then imagine me inquiring about the need for basic evidence for such claims once again. Do another Select-All and press the Backspace key. Continue with this process until you have produced such evidence to bring to this forum or when you get tired of writing.
-
I believe that I already asked for records of this claim and nothing was provided. Do we really need to go through 8 pages of me asking for evidence of this?
I cannot find a record, only calculators.
But as I asked, is your claim that these are incorrect predictions? How long do you think a day lasts on the equinox?
I verified that it was correct from my location last night and this morning you are free to do the same. I'm sure as the discrepancy between their predictions and your model is a 12 hour day as opposed to a 6 hour day they would have noticed.
I haven't been at every point along the e
Then how can you possibly know its shape??
-
Before that I just need to clarify that your claim is points on the earth will receive on average six hours of daylight as predicted by a circle of sun half the radius of the earth?
Are you saying these are incorrect numbers for these positions or that the sampled cities cannot be generalised across the earth?
It doesn't matter, it's not every point on the earth, it is any point. If at any single point on any day if you get twelve hours of sunlight under the assumption that the sun did not slowdown as it passes you, you can tell one of two things, the perimeter of sun's circle of light has passed one of the poles, or the sun does not cast light in a circle of radius half that of the earth's.
I could show the geometry if that is in question?
-
Before that I just need to clarify that your claim is points on the earth will receive on average six hours of daylight as predicted by a circle of sun half the radius of the earth?
I do not recall making that claim.
Are you saying these are incorrect numbers for these positions or that the sampled cities cannot be generalised across the earth?
We do not know. We are awaiting your evidence of such.
It doesn't matter, it's not every point on the earth, it is any point. If at any single point on any day if you get twelve hours of sunlight under the assumption that the sun did not slowdown as it passes you, you can tell one of two things, the perimeter of sun's circle of light has passed one of the poles, or the sun does not cast light in a circle of radius half that of the earth's.
I could show the geometry if that is in question?
I would prefer that you just present the evidence rather than trying to argue that evidence is not needed and that we should just logically assume that it is true.
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Literally thousands of years of records.
Are you suggesting that the equinox isn't as it has been defined for thousands of years?
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places/how-ancient-people-marked-equinox-around-world-001464
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Literally thousands of years of records.
Are you suggesting that the equinox isn't as it has been defined for thousands of years?
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places/how-ancient-people-marked-equinox-around-world-001464
Please provide a link or source for this claim of "thousands of years of records." Thank you.
-
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/Ancient-Observatories.pdf
Edit:
The linked document describes ancient observatories that are all capable of observing the equinox, over a period of thousands of years.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus#Precession_of_the_equinoxes_.28146.E2.80.93127.C2.A0BC.29
Edit: The above shows that Hipparchus had well studied the equinoxes approximately two thousand years ago.
Lest this stray into debate territory, I've started a new thread over in the debates forum:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7499.0
-
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/Ancient-Observatories.pdf
Please don't just link a 40+ page document unless you have an argument to make with it.
Also, there is an edit button. Please use it instead of double posting.
-
Before that I just need to clarify that your claim is points on the earth will receive on average six hours of daylight as predicted by a circle of sun half the radius of the earth?
I do not recall making that claim.
Your wiki shows the suns light as a circle with half the radius of the earths. pi*r^2 is a quarter of the value of pi*(2r)^2 so the sun covers on average a quarter of the earth at any moment, giving a average daytime of six hours, when I asked if this was correct you told me to find proof that days can be 12 hours long everywhere on earth, a commonly accepted fact. So I can only assume that your theory rests on the lack of a 12 hour day otherwise you would have simply explained the theory.
Are you saying these are incorrect numbers for these positions or that the sampled cities cannot be generalised across the earth?
We do not know. We are awaiting your evidence of such.
I provided the predictions of sunrise and sunset from a major organisation which is certainly evidence even though you dispute it, I need to know why you dispute the evidence to find evidence that is accepted.
I would prefer that you just present the evidence rather than trying to argue that evidence is not needed and that we should just logically assume that it is true.
I have to provide evidence to you that a day can last 12 hours outside of the summer beyond the fact that you have seen such an event twice a year for your entire life?
-
There's a website you can go to to predict sunrise and sunset times for every location on earth. A billion people can look at that website, and nobody has found an error. Do I have to manually poll each of those billion people around the world? At what point do you accept that an equation accurately predicts sunrises and sunsets?
It doesn't mean the earth is flat or round, it just means that this equation predicts sunrise and sunset times.
When I was a kid I used to see sunrise and sunset times in the newspaper, calculated from this equation. It was always right. Now when I'm travelling, I check timeanddate.com to see when sunrise and sunset is. It is always right.
What would it take for you to accept that the equation works?
-
What would it take for you to accept that the equation works?
Some type of evidence that it does would be a good start.
-
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
-
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
And what makes you think those are records of observations? I didn't know that the UK had invented the time machine.
-
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
And what makes you think those are records of observations? I didn't know that the UK had invented the time machine.
Do have evidence of any errors in past or future data?
I assume you accept that dateandtime.com is correct for your location. If not please tell us the errors.
-
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
And what makes you think those are records of observations? I didn't know that the UK had invented the time machine.
Do have evidence of any errors in past or future data?
I assume you accept that dateandtime.com is correct for your location. If not please tell us the errors.
I ask for basic evidence and you ask me to prove you wrong? That is a lousy debating strategy.
-
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
And what makes you think those are records of observations? I didn't know that the UK had invented the time machine.
Do have evidence of any errors in past or future data?
I assume you accept that dateandtime.com is correct for your location. If not please tell us the errors.
I ask for basic evidence and you ask me to prove you wrong? That is a lousy debating strategy.
No, that we agree the data is correct. Is there any reason to thonk it is incorrect and not correctly calculated, please provide your version.. Do believe calendars for next year are correct?
-
I ask for basic evidence and you ask me to prove you wrong? That is a lousy debating strategy.
I provided evidence and you are claiming the evidence is wrong and refusing to give an explanation of why. As you do with evidence such as whether passenger jets can fly supersonic, whether cable laying ships know how much they use, whether people know how long roads are and more.
Here is a list of observations taken from 1767 that match the predictions of the round earth model, a 12 hour day on the equinox.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-01767/119
Do I need evidence that the sun is not over the poles on the equinox in addition to this? I see it is accepted within the wiki and elsewhere on the forums.
-
I ask for basic evidence and you ask me to prove you wrong? That is a lousy debating strategy.
I provided evidence and you are claiming the evidence is wrong and refusing to give an explanation of why.
I didn't say it was wrong. I asked to see evidence of your hypothesis.
Here is a list of observations taken from 1767 that match the predictions of the round earth model, a 12 hour day on the equinox.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-01767/119
Do I need evidence that the sun is not over the poles on the equinox in addition to this? I see it is accepted within the wiki and elsewhere on the forums.
Look at the title of that book.
Look at the definition of the word "ephemeris."
From Google definitions:
e·phem·er·is
- a table or data file giving the calculated positions of a celestial object at regular intervals throughout a period.
- a book or set of such tables or files.
-
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/online/index.html#dmdiag
And what makes you think those are records of observations? I didn't know that the UK had invented the time machine.
Tom, don't you regularly use ENaG and 100 proofs as evidence for FET?
-
I'm not understanding something here.
When we say that ancient egyptians were able to predict eclipses, the answer is that through centuries of observation you can discern patterns. You dismiss any relationship between these observations and an actual model of the universe, you say that through observation alone you can predict these things.
If that pattern is described by an equation, why does it become illegitimate? Why is it less legitimate to predict the sunrise from such an equation or pattern of observation than it is to predict eclipses? This doesn't say anything about flat earth or round earth, just that "at latitude X and longitude Y, we predict sunrise at time HH:MM" - and that prediction is correct day in and day out for thousands of years.
I don't think you question eclipse predictions, or timing of the full moon, or any other observations that have been made for thousands of years - and when it is so easy to see a mistake if one occurs, why can't we accept an equation instead of observing the timing of a sunrise?
If you ever find the prediction to be in error you have your "a-ha" moment.
-
OK, maybe here's a method of observation that scales.
timeanddate.com for Penzance England (about as far West as you can go in England):
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/penzance
And for Great Yarmouth England (about as far East as you can go in England):
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/great-yarmouth
Observations of solar output for Great Britain:
https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/#
-
Germany:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=solar-wind&week=45&year=2017
(click "expanded" to see solar power better)
West Germany timeanddate.com (Aachen)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/germany/aachen
East Germany timeanddate.com (Berlin)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/germany/berlin
France:
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-mix-energetique-en
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/france/brest (west)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/france/strasbourg (east)
A specific place in England (Newquay):
http://www.newquayweather.com/wxsolarpv.php
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2641589
Right now the 8th of November looks like a particularly good weather day to see the curve.
All of this data supports the idea that when you calculate sunrise and sunset you get an accurate prediction based on latitude and longitude.
This doesn't mean anything about the shape of the earth, just that you have to admit we have a good understanding of how long the day is and when sunrise and sunset are given a latitude and longitude and date.
-
Here's a community based pv generation data aggregation site:
https://www.pvoutput.org/
Claims to have data from over 1 million solar installations.
You can look on a map and find installations, for example in the Netherlands:
https://www.pvoutput.org/listmap.jsp?sid=53293
Here's a specific station:
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20171106
From the map, it's in Enschede Netherlands.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/netherlands/enschede
For the 6th of November, a good sun day, timeanddate.com predicts sunrise of 7:37 AM and sunset of 4:54 PM. You can see from the graph that the power generated starts within about 10 minutes after predicted sunrise, and ends within about 10 minutes before predicted sunset.
So now, instead of asking a billion individual people, I've got a million (and growing) machines connected to the internet verifying the predictions of timeanddate.com.
-
Yes, the ephemeris contains predictions.
However the 1797 and 1941 editions contain the raw data tables used for the verification.
However this is now irrelevant since round the world data has been found by douglips which confirms both the time and dates given are correct and that days are twelve hours long on the equinox.
-
Here's a community based pv generation data aggregation site:
https://www.pvoutput.org/
Claims to have data from over 1 million solar installations.
You can look on a map and find installations, for example in the Netherlands:
https://www.pvoutput.org/listmap.jsp?sid=53293
Here's a specific station:
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20171106
From the map, it's in Enschede Netherlands.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/netherlands/enschede
For the 6th of November, a good sun day, timeanddate.com predicts sunrise of 7:37 AM and sunset of 4:54 PM. You can see from the graph that the power generated starts within about 10 minutes after predicted sunrise, and ends within about 10 minutes before predicted sunset.
So now, instead of asking a billion individual people, I've got a million (and growing) machines connected to the internet verifying the predictions of timeanddate.com.
There is something called twilight, which lasts for hours Without direct comfirmation none of your evidence is very strong, and your numbers do not appear to last a full 12 hours either.
-
Here's a community based pv generation data aggregation site:
https://www.pvoutput.org/
Claims to have data from over 1 million solar installations.
You can look on a map and find installations, for example in the Netherlands:
https://www.pvoutput.org/listmap.jsp?sid=53293
Here's a specific station:
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20171106
From the map, it's in Enschede Netherlands.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/netherlands/enschede
For the 6th of November, a good sun day, timeanddate.com predicts sunrise of 7:37 AM and sunset of 4:54 PM. You can see from the graph that the power generated starts within about 10 minutes after predicted sunrise, and ends within about 10 minutes before predicted sunset.
So now, instead of asking a billion individual people, I've got a million (and growing) machines connected to the internet verifying the predictions of timeanddate.com.
There is something called twilight, which lasts for hours Without direct comformation .none of your evidence is very strong, and your numbers do not appear to last a full 12 hours either.
What is direct confirmation?
-
Here's a community based pv generation data aggregation site:
https://www.pvoutput.org/
Claims to have data from over 1 million solar installations.
You can look on a map and find installations, for example in the Netherlands:
https://www.pvoutput.org/listmap.jsp?sid=53293
Here's a specific station:
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20171106
From the map, it's in Enschede Netherlands.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/netherlands/enschede
For the 6th of November, a good sun day, timeanddate.com predicts sunrise of 7:37 AM and sunset of 4:54 PM. You can see from the graph that the power generated starts within about 10 minutes after predicted sunrise, and ends within about 10 minutes before predicted sunset.
So now, instead of asking a billion individual people, I've got a million (and growing) machines connected to the internet verifying the predictions of timeanddate.com.
There is something called twilight, which lasts for hours Without direct comformation .none of your evidence is very strong, and your numbers do not appear to last a full 12 hours either.
Twilight does not last for hours. Except for extreme northern locations, twilight lasts less than one hour, usually more like half an hour each (morning and evening.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight
What is direct confirmation? Can someone on this forum with solar panels tell you when they start developing power?
-
It seems that your criticism of the data rests on the claim that solar panels can operate during twilight (ie they can operate at night). Which seems unlikely but I will concede that point to you and I assume the assumption that each model will behave the same to the same light regardless where on earth it is.
So can we agree that on the equinox every sample point receives a roughly equal number of hours of sunlight to each other sample point?
-
Here's a community based pv generation data aggregation site:
https://www.pvoutput.org/
Claims to have data from over 1 million solar installations.
You can look on a map and find installations, for example in the Netherlands:
https://www.pvoutput.org/listmap.jsp?sid=53293
Here's a specific station:
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20171106
From the map, it's in Enschede Netherlands.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/netherlands/enschede
For the 6th of November, a good sun day, timeanddate.com predicts sunrise of 7:37 AM and sunset of 4:54 PM. You can see from the graph that the power generated starts within about 10 minutes after predicted sunrise, and ends within about 10 minutes before predicted sunset.
So now, instead of asking a billion individual people, I've got a million (and growing) machines connected to the internet verifying the predictions of timeanddate.com.
There is something called twilight, which lasts for hours Without direct comformation .none of your evidence is very strong, and your numbers do not appear to last a full 12 hours either.
Twilight does not last for hours. Except for extreme northern locations, twilight lasts less than one hour, usually more like half an hour each (morning and evening.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight
What is direct confirmation? Can someone on this forum with solar panels tell you when they start developing power?
Besides - solar power plants start producing energy more or less as soon as there is sunlight cast upon them - the data shows that they consistently start producing measurable energy within 15 minutes of sunrise and shut off 15 minutes before sunset. This is PLENTY accurate enough to prove that the sunrise/sunset times are inconsistent with any flat earth map.
If you pick either equinox and look at the times when stations along the same line of longitude start and stop producing power - the times are within minutes of each other - and that's enough to disprove both the unipolar AND bipolar maps.
-
Besides - solar power plants start producing energy more or less as soon as there is sunlight cast upon them - the data shows that they consistently start producing measurable energy within 15 minutes of sunrise and shut off 15 minutes before sunset. This is PLENTY accurate enough to prove that the sunrise/sunset times are inconsistent with any flat earth map.
I was looking for a source for some information like that and sadly didn't find anything. I believe this is the case, I just don't have any evidence other than what we see on pvoutput.org. That's why I'm asking Tom what "direct proof" would be - if someone on this forum has solar panels and can measure when with respect to observed AND predicted sunrise the panels start producing power, would that be good enough?
-
Besides - solar power plants start producing energy more or less as soon as there is sunlight cast upon them - the data shows that they consistently start producing measurable energy within 15 minutes of sunrise and shut off 15 minutes before sunset. This is PLENTY accurate enough to prove that the sunrise/sunset times are inconsistent with any flat earth map.
I was looking for a source for some information like that and sadly didn't find anything. I believe this is the case, I just don't have any evidence other than what we see on pvoutput.org. That's why I'm asking Tom what "direct proof" would be - if someone on this forum has solar panels and can measure when with respect to observed AND predicted sunrise the panels start producing power, would that be good enough?
I do - and I could - but Tom says he won't believe what "we and our friends" say.
I would expect that close to a million solar independent power users reporting data through PVoutput.org would be exactly the kind of thing he's been demanding.
It's independent - no government can be faking the data. It's complete. It appears to be a very neat fit for what timeanddate.org says.
They aren't "predictions" - they are actual measurements. This is very hard to deny.
-
I do - and I could - but Tom says he won't believe what "we and our friends" say.
I would expect that close to a million solar independent power users reporting data through PVoutput.org would be exactly the kind of thing he's been demanding.
It's independent - no government can be faking the data. It's complete. It appears to be a very neat fit for what timeanddate.org says.
They aren't "predictions" - they are actual measurements. This is very hard to deny.
Yet, anything that disproves FE must ignored or deflected by them or their whole house of cards falls apart.
-
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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.
Your data does not really make any sense. Look at what you posted:
Here's one in Enschede Netherlands, where on 22 September of this year it was predicted that sunrise would be 7:18 AM, and sunset 7:30 PM.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20170922
In case they rate limit all of you people from hitting their website and melting it, here's the data from near sunrise:
22/09/17 7:30AM 0.003kWh 0.001kWh/kW 15W 12W 0.004kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:25AM 0.002kWh 0.001kWh/kW 4W 12W 0.004kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:20AM 0.001kWh 0.000kWh/kW 0W 0W 0.000kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:15AM 0.001kWh 0.000kWh/kW 0W - - - - - -
...
But Cairns is kind of North, so let's try South Australia.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=3332&sid=2590&dt=20170922
Millicent, Australia, 37 degrees south latitude.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2157652?month=9&year=2017
Predicted sunrise/sunset:
5:58 - 6:04
Sunrise data:
22/09/17 6:30AM 0.029kWh 0.009kWh/kW 180W 180W 0.055kW/kW 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
22/09/17 6:25AM 0.014kWh 0.004kWh/kW 96W 96W 0.029kW/kW 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
22/09/17 6:20AM 0.006kWh 0.002kWh/kW 48W 48W 0.015kW/kW 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
22/09/17 6:15AM 0.002kWh 0.001kWh/kW 24W - - 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
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?
-
I posted this in multiple threads because I developed the idea in the other thread which was a Q& A thread, and then I saw all the arguing in this thread which was easily resolved, so I posted it here as well.
As to what the difference is:
a) the data is collected at 5 minute intervals. This obviously means that the first collection point could be after 1 minute of power collection (or even less) or 5 minutes of power collection, so you should expect up to a factor of 5 difference in the first reading.
b) The station in Australia doesn't report earlier than 6:15 on that day - it's possible it doesn't report until it has at least a certain threshold of power generated. I do not know the exact specifics of that one power system. Perhaps you would like me to pick one of the other million or so that does include data from when zero power is generated?
c) The columns listed are:
Date Time Energy Efficiency Power Average Normalised Temperature Voltage Energy Used Power Used
The one I find most interesting is the Power column, in the Netherlands here's a bit more data (again, from that same page that you could visit and see data from all the day:
22/09/17 7:45AM 0.012kWh 0.004kWh/kW 56W 48W 0.016kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:40AM 0.008kWh 0.003kWh/kW 36W 36W 0.012kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:35AM 0.005kWh 0.002kWh/kW 28W 24W 0.008kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:30AM 0.003kWh 0.001kWh/kW 15W 12W 0.004kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:25AM 0.002kWh 0.001kWh/kW 4W 12W 0.004kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:20AM 0.001kWh 0.000kWh/kW 0W 0W 0.000kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:15AM 0.001kWh 0.000kWh/kW 0W - - - - - -
If, for example, the Cairns station does not report when generating less than 5 watts (which is a tiny amount for a 3kW system) you would miss that first data line.
For now, I do not have a way to assert that twilight cannot generate any power, but I'm working on it.
What about my reports for California? I've personally verified when sunrise and sunset is for approximately 100 days of the last 3 years, and from that I have decided that for California, I trust timeanddate.com. I then looked at CalISO's website and saw the solar curve matches very well, so in the case of California solar power, no power is generated at twilight.
Please let me know what proof you would like to confirm that twilight doesn't generate power.
-
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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Types-of-twilight-en.svg) and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.
Your data does not really make any sense. Look at what you posted:
Here's one in Enschede Netherlands, where on 22 September of this year it was predicted that sunrise would be 7:18 AM, and sunset 7:30 PM.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=37744&sid=34523&dt=20170922
In case they rate limit all of you people from hitting their website and melting it, here's the data from near sunrise:
22/09/17 7:30AM 0.003kWh 0.001kWh/kW 15W 12W 0.004kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:25AM 0.002kWh 0.001kWh/kW 4W 12W 0.004kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:20AM 0.001kWh 0.000kWh/kW 0W 0W 0.000kW/kW - - - -
22/09/17 7:15AM 0.001kWh 0.000kWh/kW 0W - - - - - -
...
But Cairns is kind of North, so let's try South Australia.
https://www.pvoutput.org/intraday.jsp?id=3332&sid=2590&dt=20170922
Millicent, Australia, 37 degrees south latitude.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@2157652?month=9&year=2017
Predicted sunrise/sunset:
5:58 - 6:04
Sunrise data:
22/09/17 6:30AM 0.029kWh 0.009kWh/kW 180W 180W 0.055kW/kW 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
22/09/17 6:25AM 0.014kWh 0.004kWh/kW 96W 96W 0.029kW/kW 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
22/09/17 6:20AM 0.006kWh 0.002kWh/kW 48W 48W 0.015kW/kW 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
22/09/17 6:15AM 0.002kWh 0.001kWh/kW 24W - - 19.7C - 0.042kWh -
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?
Why is it you always find it difficult to see the principle and want to argue about small points. We know you accept that timeanddate.com is correct which shows how the shape of the earth can be easily determined, other than just understanding the path of the sun.
-
Hmmm. The original point of the discussion seems to be whether timeanddate.org is reliable. Well, the same info has been published in the Nautical Almanac and numerous other sources for years and years, and is used by navigators on a daily basis. Call this common knowledge, empirical evidence, or what you like. I’ve seen it used.
Can Tom give us any evidence of a recorded inaccuracy in the sun rise and sun set time predictions. Just one will do.
-
Hmmm. The original point of the discussion seems to be whether timeanddate.org is reliable. Well, the same info has been published in the Nautical Almanac and numerous other sources for years and years, and is used by navigators on a daily basis. Call this common knowledge, empirical evidence, or what you like. I’ve seen it used.
Can Tom give us any evidence of a recorded inaccuracy in the sun rise and sun set time predictions. Just one will do.
Quite so Mark, it would be lovely if TomTom could back up his absurd claim but he can't, as we know hence why he resorts to these desperate denials. If I were to bet I'd say he'll either ignore you or make some wild claim that the burden of proof rests on us not him thus he no obligation to prove anything. Either way it demonstrates there is, and can be no sensible retort to the FACTS presented by time and date, which conflict with any theoretical FE map, which alongside all the other evidence offered recently gives cast iron proof that earth is certainly NOT flat. Tom can no longer argue using facts, all he had is denial. :'(
-
This thread has nothing to do with images, you can stand on any point on earth and time day time and night time at twelve hours each.
Any records of that?
Okay fine, it's 12 hours and 8 mins, so the sun must cover 50.8% of the earth. But yes, of course there are records.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/new-zealand/auckland?month=9&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/edinburgh?month=9&year=2017
That's a calculator, not a list of observations.
This from the guy that uses a redit post of an old balloon from a random internet post as proof?
-
Part of me is wondering if you are just trolling about fake-NASA to distract from the original question.
How does this have anything to do with space travel?
I personally found the question to be rather uninteresting. We get the same question all the time. Here are some examples on how this topic will proceed:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6588.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6498.msg121460#msg121460
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6919.msg125884#msg125884
Maybe you get the same question because it never gets answered?
I notice your links do not even cover the question. Are you getting rattled?
-
Equally to the point, how can the sun cast a circle of light when it radiates in all directions ?
-
Equally to the point, how can the sun cast a circle of light when it radiates in all directions ?
It's almost like its a giant ball of hot gas fueled by fusion!
-
Equally to the point, how can the sun cast a circle of light when it radiates in all directions ?
A circle of light? Like this you mean?
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/sunlightGMT12.jpg)
(Midnight in Africa).