Those NOAA/NAVY calculators are not accurate. There is the problem of trying to triangulate the Sun. See the following link:You have proof they are not, please show errors for your location.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc)
Those NOAA/NAVY calculators are not accurate. There is the problem of trying to triangulate the Sun. See the following links:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc)
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAJ7A7S82A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAJ7A7S82A)
Ok lets approach this in a different way then.
As a matter of RECORD the summer solstice in 1870 was at 15:56 GMT on 21st June. In 2018 the summer solstice will be on the same day at 11:00 GMT, some 5 hours before the year 1870. Therefore the declination of the sun in 1870 will be the same as 2018, plus 5 hours.
The declination of the sun on 13th July 2018 at 07:00GMT (5 hours before an “equivalent” time in 1870) the declination will be 21 degrees 49.1 N. The NOAA calculator gave 21 degrees 50 minutes. A difference of 1 minute of arc.
I cannot believe that you are arguing over 1 minute of arc, when EnaGs calculation is 180 minutes of arc in error.
Even if it is a whole day earlier or later the change in declination and therefore altitude of the sun, would be less than 10 arc minutes, so your observations are not warranted.
And further more if the declination was slightly incorrect, it would not affect the difference between the 2 measurements as they were supposedly taken at the same time.
Any more clarification?
Ok lets approach this in a different way then.
As a matter of RECORD the summer solstice in 1870 was at 15:56 GMT on 21st June. In 2018 the summer solstice will be on the same day at 11:00 GMT, some 5 hours before the year 1870. Therefore the declination of the sun in 1870 will be the same as 2018, plus 5 hours.
The declination of the sun on 13th July 2018 at 07:00GMT (5 hours before an “equivalent” time in 1870) the declination will be 21 degrees 49.1 N. The NOAA calculator gave 21 degrees 50 minutes. A difference of 1 minute of arc.
I cannot believe that you are arguing over 1 minute of arc, when EnaGs calculation is 180 minutes of arc in error.
Even if it is a whole day earlier or later the change in declination and therefore altitude of the sun, would be less than 10 arc minutes, so your observations are not warranted.
And further more if the declination was slightly incorrect, it would not affect the difference between the 2 measurements as they were supposedly taken at the same time.
Any more clarification?
I read through this. You are still using the NOAA calculators and similar calculators as evidence. Where do you think the future predictions come from, if not from a calculator? See the above link.
Those NOAA/NAVY calculators are not accurate. There is the problem of trying to triangulate the Sun. See the following links:I'll leave your videos for now due to lack of time.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc)
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAJ7A7S82A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAJ7A7S82A)
Adding a bit to Tontogary's post.
Rowbotham said:QuoteBy the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles,Now with London at about 51.5° N, 400 statute miles south is at about 45.7°N.
The sun, however, can never be above a point further north than 23.5° N (the Tropic of Capricorn) and "On Wednesday, 13 July 1870 at 12:04:00 UTC the Sun is at its zenith at Latitude: 21° 50' North".
From: Time and date, Day and Night World Map, London on 13 July 1870 at 12:04:00 UTC (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=13&month=7&year=1870&hour=12&min=05&sec=0&n=136&ntxt=London&earth=0)
So Rowbotham's claim that the sun is not more than 700 statute miles high and
"that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles" are completely incorrect.
Those errors are at least partly due to his gross errors in measuring the elevations of the sun.
Those NOAA/NAVY calculators are not accurate. There is the problem of trying to triangulate the Sun. See the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc)
Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles...it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
[the height of the sun] is approximately 2000 miles
Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away
The author of that video invites you to replicate what he did to show that the calculators are in error. Why not take him up on it?
Ok lets approach this in a different way then.
As a matter of RECORD the summer solstice in 1870 was at 15:56 GMT on 21st June. In 2018 the summer solstice will be on the same day at 11:00 GMT, some 5 hours before the year 1870. Therefore the declination of the sun in 1870 will be the same as 2018, plus 5 hours.
The declination of the sun on 13th July 2018 at 07:00GMT (5 hours before an “equivalent” time in 1870) the declination will be 21 degrees 49.1 N. The NOAA calculator gave 21 degrees 50 minutes. A difference of 1 minute of arc.
I cannot believe that you are arguing over 1 minute of arc, when EnaGs calculation is 180 minutes of arc in error.
Even if it is a whole day earlier or later the change in declination and therefore altitude of the sun, would be less than 10 arc minutes, so your observations are not warranted.
And further more if the declination was slightly incorrect, it would not affect the difference between the 2 measurements as they were supposedly taken at the same time.
Any more clarification?
I read through this. You are still using the NOAA calculators and similar calculators as evidence. Where do you think the future predictions come from, if not from a calculator? See the above link.
I just watched and wasted a whole 15 minutes thinking there might be something.....
However the link you provided is of some Youtube pseudo scientist trying to prove a point.
I only looked at the NOAA calculator as an easy reference for the declination, (not as actual calculator as shown in the video) but that is NOT the reason for this post. I am discussing Rowbotham, and would appreciate if you keep this on track.
I am concerned ONLY with the suns declination. Do you know what that is?
The declination and latitude, along with the time of the observation is the ONLY data needed.
Now as you didnt like the NOAA calculator, I referenced it to time of the solstice, which people have been pretty accurately determining for the last few thousand years, and is a matter of public record.
Our current almanac is accurate, if not there would be many many problems navigating, which there is not, so i am not going to get into that discussion, it is irrelevant.
The declination is was only used to show that the actual calculations in EnaG are way in error.
I would invite you to show where i have made an error, not just post a link to you tube on a completely different topic, that adds nothing to the discussion.
I would also invite you to show me that the declination of either 20, 21, 22 degrees make a difference to the difference in the altitudes of the sun at Brighton and London Bridge? (Which gives him the angle that he uses for his calculations) however I guess you cannot, but am willing for you to try, other than just direct me to more time wasting links.
Finally you can also show me where i Am wrong with the baseline distance as well?
Those NOAA/NAVY calculators are not accurate. There is the problem of trying to triangulate the Sun. See the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc)
So you think Rowbotham's measurements were accurate and his calculated distance to the sun is accurate?
I'm confused then how here Rowbotham says:QuoteHence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles...it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm
But on your Wiki ot says:Quote[the height of the sun] is approximately 2000 miles
andQuoteModern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away
https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
So which is it? Was Rowbotham right or not? If he was, why does your Wiki give such a different figure? If he wasn't, why are you arguing about it?
There are no email addresses on that Modern Mecahnics article. Where did those numbers come from? I am not them. The article was posted because it further describes the methodology.OK, but you can see how that might confuse a stupid person.
Ok if you have a problem with me looking at what the prediction for the suns declination of July 2018 is going to be, how about i compare with the suns declination of 2017? That historical, as is the record of 1870.
There are no email addresses on that Modern Mecahnics article. Where did those numbers come from? I am not them. The article was posted because it further describes the methodology.OK, but you can see how that might confuse a stupid person.
On that Wiki page you quote two different sources with calculations, one says 2,000 miles, the other says 3,000.
Rowbotham says 800.
Which is it? If you claim Rowbotham is accurate then fine, but why not just quote his experiments on the Wiki, not two other articles which both give very different answers to both Rowbotham and each other.
Ok if you have a problem with me looking at what the prediction for the suns declination of July 2018 is going to be, how about i compare with the suns declination of 2017? That historical, as is the record of 1870.
There are not old astronomers sitting in observatories at every latitude on earth, carefully chronicling where the sun is in the sky throughout the day. All of the numbers you are seeing are generally calculated numbers. We have explored that concept thoroughly over the last 11 years.
So what is the height of the sun in your flat earth model? There seem to be at least 5 competing claims:There are no email addresses on that Modern Mechanics article. Where did those numbers come from? I am not them. The article was posted because it further describes the methodology.OK, but you can see how that might confuse a stupid person.
On that Wiki page you quote two different sources with calculations, one says 2,000 miles, the other says 3,000.
Rowbotham says 800.
Which is it? If you claim Rowbotham is accurate then fine, but why not just quote his experiments on the Wiki, not two other articles which both give very different answers to both Rowbotham and each other.
You are right. It could use at least a disclaimer. We do need more help on the Wiki. There are very few editors.