Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - robinofloxley

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 13, 2019, 09:13:24 AM »
Sort of like of Ptolmy used numerical computations and epicycles to predict the location of the planets?
Actually yes, exactly like that.
But that model was later replaced with a better, heliocentric one. That's how science works.
You seem to struggle with this concept.
And Ptolmy wasn't a flat earther...

I've noticed Tom and others bring up epicycles more than once, but I don't really see the significance. I don't think Tom actually believes planetary orbits are physically epicycles, just that epicycles are a mathematical tool to predict orbits. OK, so epicycles of sufficient complexity could be used to predict orbits. So what. We have other tools now and we use them instead, so presumably these new tools are either more accurate or easier to use or produce results faster.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 09, 2019, 11:48:20 AM »
I appreciate that the OP and the thread title are concerned with "Problems with the Heliocentric Model", however you've made various specific claims and challenges in regard to modelling software.

In particular, you asked newhorizons to "confirm the the product you offer utilizes the math utilized by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein" and then went on to claim "if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein".
Yeah, any honest reading of what I wrote would understand the inclusion of MODELING the results of the math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, in visual form.

If, by chance, you didn't understand that when reading my written point, then please understand that point at this time.

My "honest reading" of what you wrote led me to think you were confident there wouldn't be any code related to Kepler et al in the code and I went to the trouble of downloading and searching the codebase because I thought that's what you meant. Sorry.

Stellarium is open source which means all of the source is published, so I looked at the code myself and found code related to Kepler, directly addressing your claim.

You threw out a challenge saying "show me the code!" So I did.
And, as pointed out, what you referred to indicates Kepler's equation is solved, according to the overview.

There is only a statement it has been solved, and if it is contained in that software program, it would still have nothing to do with the rendering of visual outputs within Stellarium (or more precisely, a full visual rendering of the solar system).

Well now you are asserting that it would have nothing to do with the rendering, but that's pure speculation and common sense says that if the author has taken the trouble to write code to solve Kepler's equation, add it to the codebase and keep it there over time, then they must have had some reason for doing so and given the purpose of Stellarium is to render images, it makes more sense to me that this code is used in the rendering. And now I'm speculating too. In reality neither of us knows for sure at this point.

How does this relate to heliocentricity? It doesn't. I've never mentioned heliocentricity. Our exchanges so far on this topic have all been about whether certain types of software does or does not contain code related to Kepler. Can we at least agree that I have shown you some code which meets the criteria of your original challenge?
We can agree you referred the members to an overview containing writing that Kepler's equation is solved.
I accept that you do now want to qualify your original challenge and establish that the code is actually used in the rendering and I agree that's a perfectly valid question to ask, but it was not part of the original challenge and I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort on trying to figure that one out, so it'll have to remain an unanswered question.
Okay.

Thank you.
You've also said "we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric". Well it depends what you mean. You can build a model based on Kepler's ideas alone and it'll give you reasonably accurate results, but time has moved on and better models have emerged (and continue to emerge) which produce ever more accurate results. If you want to build a planetarium model, or plan a mission to Titan you'd be silly not to use a more sophisticated model which handles the N-body problem and the perturbations which are introduced.
Well, any rendering would seem to have solved the three-body problem, correct?

If so, why no solution announced from on high?

Why no smoke from the chimney?

Announcement of what exactly? There's no new discovery being claimed here.

There are no analytic solutions for the N-body problem and analytic solutions for the more restricted 3-body solution only exist for limited special cases. But there are numerical solutions dating back decades and these are used for planetarium software and mission planning. Numerical solutions are only approximations, but the most sophisticated ones are highly accurate and in very close agreement with observation - they are still solutions. Stellarium and other planetarium software claim to use VSOP 87 as the basis for determining planetary positions. VSOP 87 is described by Wikipedia as "semi-analytic" - being a mixture of analytical and numerical methods. The paper explaining VSOP 87 says "We must first solve Kepler's equation in order to get the expressions of the variables X, Y, Z" - that would belong to the analytic side of semi-analytic.

My belief is this:
  • Stellarium uses VSOP 87 (the authors claim this and I believe them)
  • VSOP 87 uses Kepler's equation (the authors claim this and I believe them)
  • Stellarium therefore uses Kepler's equation (for what we're not sure)
  • Stellarium's purpose is to render images of the night sky and celestial bodies
  • There's no point in having code in a codebase which is never used (common sense)
  • Therefore Stellarium relies on Kepler at some level or other for its rendering (again based on common sense)
No attempt to claim proof of anything here, just laying out my view.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 08, 2019, 01:36:26 PM »
Well I hope you liked the photos.

One thing I did notice in Stellarium yesterday is that it gives an absolute magnitude for Jupiter of -9.4.

The absolute magnitude is the brightness of a celestial body as seen from a standard distance of 10pc or 32.6 light years. Since the Sun has an absolute magnitude (correctly given by Stellarium) of +4.8 I am not sure where the -9.4 comes from.

Anyway I will leave you to argue between yourselves regarding the Stellarium source code for now.
Those photos are terrific!

You do excellent work!

Well there's one thing at least we completely agree upon  :) - great photos!

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 08, 2019, 01:29:10 PM »
Kepler's equation being solved...

How does that relate to the supposed heliocentricity of the system?

What makes him think it is simply pattern inputs is the fact if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein.
Correct, I did write that, and in context of the discussion, leads one to ask the question that I asked above.

Repeating: How does that relate to the supposed heliocentricity of the system?

Not moving the goalposts as the OP itself is entitled "Problems with the heliocentric model."

IF the source code does contain math and equations specifically by Kepler, we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric.

Very basic stuff.

I think that speaks for itself.
Yes, it does...

As you point out (quite correctly, incidentally) this does conclusively state nothing in terms of modeling a heliocentric solar system.

Thank you.

I appreciate that the OP and the thread title are concerned with "Problems with the Heliocentric Model", however you've made various specific claims and challenges in regard to modelling software.

In particular, you asked newhorizons to "confirm the the product you offer utilizes the math utilized by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein" and then went on to claim "if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein".

Stellarium is open source which means all of the source is published, so I looked at the code myself and found code related to Kepler, directly addressing your claim.

You threw out a challenge saying "show me the code!" So I did.

How does this relate to heliocentricity? It doesn't. I've never mentioned heliocentricity. Our exchanges so far on this topic have all been about whether certain types of software does or does not contain code related to Kepler. Can we at least agree that I have shown you some code which meets the criteria of your original challenge? I accept that you do now want to qualify your original challenge and establish that the code is actually used in the rendering and I agree that's a perfectly valid question to ask, but it was not part of the original challenge and I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort on trying to figure that one out, so it'll have to remain an unanswered question.

You've also said "we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric". Well it depends what you mean. You can build a model based on Kepler's ideas alone and it'll give you reasonably accurate results, but time has moved on and better models have emerged (and continue to emerge) which produce ever more accurate results. If you want to build a planetarium model, or plan a mission to Titan you'd be silly not to use a more sophisticated model which handles the N-body problem and the perturbations which are introduced.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 07, 2019, 04:59:40 PM »
OK, you asked newhorizons for evidence of:

Quote
a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein

I have provided you evidence that a rendered simulation of the solar system (Stellarium) does (according to the authors) at the very least use Kepler's equation and I've literally pointed you at the lines of source code involved.
No, you pointed me and other members to an overview of what the authors claim to contain such code.

I provided a direct link to the C++ source code on github where the project is hosted. This is the actual source code used to build Stellarium. You can download this source code and build it yourself if you have the appropriate tools. I pointed you to a module called sgp4ext.cpp which contains a function called newtonnu, 248 lines of C++ source code which according to the author's comment "solves keplers equation". This is not an overview, it's actual source code. Whether the function does indeed solve Kepler's equation, I couldn't say, but this is clearly what the author claims.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the material you provided makes no claim or reference whether or not the lines of code or Kepler's equations are even utilized in performing the rendering or yielding a visual representation.

Well in an earlier post you said...

What makes him think it is simply pattern inputs is the fact if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein.

Now this is evidently published code and it does indeed contain something related to Kepler. If you now want proof that the code in question is used in the rendering, well that's moving the goalposts, this is not what you originally asked for. Stellarium contains about 700MB of source code. Tracing through that amount of someone else's unfamiliar code to determine if some return value is actually used for rendering would be a considerable undertaking and - call me cynical - but I think if I told you I'd done that and was satisfied, you would not take my word for it.

I have provided evidence that the authors of the definitive paper describing VSOP87 (which is the method Stellarium - and others - uses for planetary positioning) also claim to use Kepler's equation.

You did not ask for proof, you asked for evidence. I have provided you with the evidence you asked for, so now you shift the goalposts and you appear to be accusing the authors of the software and the paper describing VSOP87 of lying when they make their claims about using Kepler's equation.
You are correct.

I asked for evidence.

I am not accusing anyone of lying, certainly not you or the programmers/developers of the software.

I have factually explained what was written in the source you provided and have shown what you have provided is evidence of mentioning Kepler and equations, not evidence it is utilized in rendering visuals.

Furthermore, when it comes VSOP87, I find this:

"The first step in computing the apparent position of a planet is computing the heliocentric coordinates (such as X,Y,Z) for both the planet and the Earth at the same moment."

So it appears that, even if this program is utilized, it does not render a 3 - body resolution to the rendering, nor can it render an entire solar system.

Can I point you to page 311 of the paper where it says:

Quote
VSOP 87 contains the newtonian perturbations of the eight planets between themselves, the perturbations of the Moon on the Earth-Mood barycenter and on all the planets and the relativistic perturbations expressed in isotropic coordinates.

I think that speaks for itself.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 07, 2019, 02:57:04 PM »
You introduced the software as evidence of the heliocentric model.

If it is, then the routines governing its operation, by default, are based on the laws and maths proposed by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

The reason you won't contact the developers of the software is simple.

You know the emperor is wearing no clothes.

If I understand you correctly you don't believe that planetarium software makes use of Kepler's equations. Well Starry Night is commercial software, so you can't easily look at the source code, however there is a very good open source alternative Stellarium and you can easily check the code for yourself.

https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/plugins/Satellites/src/gsatellite/sgp4ext.cpp

Take a look at line 159 onwards:

Quote
function newtonnu ... this function solves keplers equation...

Basically it's using Kepler's equation and a simplified perturbation model SGP4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_perturbations_models for satellite calculations.

I can't speak for Starry Night, but certainly something in Stellarium utilizes Kepler.
Simply referring to Kepler or Newton does not in fact mean the program utilizes Kepler or Newton.

It certainly makes no reference to whether this particular section of code includes a resultant modeling output of all of the solar system, or even three body modeling.

So yes, while it makes mention, there is no real evidence those maths or equations are even utilized.
If I were sitting in a candlelit room with a quill pen and some trig tables trying to work out a planetary position, I'd no doubt be trying to use Kepler's equation, however these days we have powerful computers and we have far more sophisticated models which use numerical methods to deal with the perturbations inherent in the N-body problem.

For obvious reasons the JPL have a vested interest in celestial mechanics and they have produced a whole series of more and more refined models over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris.

So if I were trying to write my own planetarium software today and wanted really accurate results, my starting point would be VSOP87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets) which is based on JPL's DE200 ephemeris model. This is what Stellarium and a number of other similar projects use, I don't know about Starry Night.

Using VSOP87 is reasonably straightforward. Understanding it less so. http://neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/vsop87_theory_paper/VSOP87%20Theory%20Paper.pdf however it certainly does include a lot of math!

The section of this paper explaining how the VSOP87 solution is derived states:

Quote
We must first solve Kepler's equation in order to get the expressions of the variables X, Y, Z.

So it seems that VSOP87 (upon which Stellarium's planetary positioning is based) does indeed make use of a lot of math and Kepler's equation.
It makes a use of a lot of references to Kepler's equation is a more accurate statement.

OK, you asked newhorizons for evidence of:

Quote
a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein

I have provided you evidence that a rendered simulation of the solar system (Stellarium) does (according to the authors) at the very least use Kepler's equation and I've literally pointed you at the lines of source code involved. I have provided evidence that the authors of the definitive paper describing VSOP87 (which is the method Stellarium - and others - uses for planetary positioning) also claim to use Kepler's equation.

You did not ask for proof, you asked for evidence. I have provided you with the evidence you asked for, so now you shift the goalposts and you appear to be accusing the authors of the software and the paper describing VSOP87 of lying when they make their claims about using Kepler's equation.

Just think about this for a second. The authors in both cases did not need to mention Kepler at all. By claiming, in publicly available media, they were using Kepler's equations, both sets of authors were exposing themselves to scrutiny from anyone capable of reading the math and/or understanding code. Why would they do this if the claims were bogus?

I think it's pretty clear that you didn't expect anyone to actually go to the trouble of digging out the evidence you said you wanted, so you now have to backpedal and dismiss the evidence and essentially say "prove the authors aren't lying".

So, if in testing it is clearly demonstrated the inputs of these programs include nothing containing the math from Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, where does that leave you?

And where does this leave you now?

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 07, 2019, 01:21:03 PM »
You introduced the software as evidence of the heliocentric model.

If it is, then the routines governing its operation, by default, are based on the laws and maths proposed by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

The reason you won't contact the developers of the software is simple.

You know the emperor is wearing no clothes.

If I understand you correctly you don't believe that planetarium software makes use of Kepler's equations. Well Starry Night is commercial software, so you can't easily look at the source code, however there is a very good open source alternative Stellarium and you can easily check the code for yourself.

https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/plugins/Satellites/src/gsatellite/sgp4ext.cpp

Take a look at line 159 onwards:

Quote
function newtonnu ... this function solves keplers equation...

Basically it's using Kepler's equation and a simplified perturbation model SGP4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_perturbations_models for satellite calculations.

I can't speak for Starry Night, but certainly something in Stellarium utilizes Kepler.

If I were sitting in a candlelit room with a quill pen and some trig tables trying to work out a planetary position, I'd no doubt be trying to use Kepler's equation, however these days we have powerful computers and we have far more sophisticated models which use numerical methods to deal with the perturbations inherent in the N-body problem.

For obvious reasons the JPL have a vested interest in celestial mechanics and they have produced a whole series of more and more refined models over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris.

So if I were trying to write my own planetarium software today and wanted really accurate results, my starting point would be VSOP87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets) which is based on JPL's DE200 ephemeris model. This is what Stellarium and a number of other similar projects use, I don't know about Starry Night.

Using VSOP87 is reasonably straightforward. Understanding it less so. http://neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/vsop87_theory_paper/VSOP87%20Theory%20Paper.pdf however it certainly does include a lot of math!

The section of this paper explaining how the VSOP87 solution is derived states:

Quote
We must first solve Kepler's equation in order to get the expressions of the variables X, Y, Z.

So it seems that VSOP87 (upon which Stellarium's planetary positioning is based) does indeed make use of a lot of math and Kepler's equation.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 23, 2019, 01:22:43 PM »
Hoax is possible . Typical rocket launch.

 https://floridarussian.com/featured/shuttle-discovery-launch-4-5-10-2/

Shuttle glides down to unknown destination - Tristan de Cuna or some such other base - after all we can't track worldwide .

Refuel shuttle . Send it back up on it's transporter plane . Release at altitude and let it glide down to the waiting photographers .Not difficult really .
So without going into orbit, the shuttle is going to have to use powered flight, burning fuel the whole way. This is a heavy vehicle with tiny wings, the aerodynamics of a large truck, powered by rockets. How much fuel is this going to need to power its way from Florida to Tristan de Cuna (about 10,000km)? And when it gets there? Does it have retractable floats, because there sure isn't an airport there. Do the several hundred people who live there get hypnotized or something, so they don't remember a space shuttle dropping in?

Finally, craft such as the X15 and SpaceShipOne do use motherships and air-launch, but guess what, the launch vehicle is carried underneath so it can simply drop clear. The modified 747 carrying the shuttle carries it on top, so how does that work? Maybe the 747 does a barrel roll and drops the shuttle when upside down?

To be honest you might as well have just said use tractor beams and teleporters, it's no less credible than your explanation. "Not difficult really". Wow.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 22, 2019, 09:21:10 AM »
The heliocentric model is quite specific in it's prediction of when equinox occurs , the two instances when the sun crosses the celestial equator on the ecliptic plane

Quite correct

- resulting in equal day/night lengths

No - incorrect. This is the part you make up and keep tacking on to everything you say. The minute you start talking about equal lengths of day and night you are no longer talking about equinox, this is equilux.

Here's a concise definition of equilux https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equilux

Quote
equilux: a date when day and night are of exactly equal length

Please point out where this definition of equilux differs in any way from your personal definition of equinox. If the two are identical, then please say so and maybe reflect on why we need two separate words at all.


 ( allowance is made for assumed refraction )


Even if there were no atmosphere and no refraction, equinox and equilux would still be different simply because one measures from the two occasions where a single point on the sun (it's centre) crosses the horizon and the other doesn't (it uses two different points).
 

Observation of these phenomena do not agree with prediction of the heliocentric model (see timeanddate ).


I agree completely with timeanddate's prediction of when the equinox happens (and according to them it's the same time everywhere). Problem is you are not using their predictions, you are making your own equinox predictions, inappropriately using sunrise and sunset times, which without any corrections are completely useless for equinox predictions.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 19, 2019, 01:47:46 PM »
I accept timeanddate values for sunrise/sunset times where these are verifiable by anyone through direct observation .
This is subtly different from what you said before where you said timeanddate values were direct observation (not theory as you put it).

I doubt any of us have the time or money to invest travelling the world to verify these values personally for anything other than a tiny sample, so you are presumably trusting timeanddate based on very little personal evidence and extending that trust to be happy to accept any of their values for any date past or present at any location. But you're not willing to trust anything else from timeanddate (or anywhere else) and you are specifically disagreeing with them when they clearly tell you that the 2019 autumnal equinox is on 23rd Sept at every location. It sounds to me like you actively distrust what timeanddate tell you, except where it suits you.

Personally, if I find a source of information that appears trustworthy, reliable and verifiable in one area, I'll give them the benefit of doubt and extend that trust to other areas until someone demonstrates otherwise. If I discovered something I disagreed with, I'd question my own understanding of the topic first and if I were that interested, I'd research it more to try and get to the bottom of the discrepancy.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 18, 2019, 03:25:35 PM »
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .
I thought I'd have one last go at persuading you, so here goes.

How are time and date's sunrise/set times direct observations? In other words how is it possible for me to look up a direct observation for a sunrise time on 23rd Sept 2019 when it hasn't happened yet?

The reality is that they use an agreed technical definition of sunrise/set - when the centre of the sun is 50 arcminutes below the horizon - to make mathematical predictions. This figure is derived from the 16 arcminute angular radius of the sun plus 34 arcminutes - an accepted average figure to account for refraction. If atmospheric conditions differ at your location on the day or you are not at sea level, sunrise/set will differ by a small amount.

On an equinox day, wherever you are, if you time from when the centre of the sun hits the horizon on the rise to the same point when it sets, you will get close to 12h. Sunrise to sunset will take a longer time however because the sun must travel the extra 50 arcminutes (twice).

Go on over to your favourite site https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/autumnal-equinox.html and look up the autumnal equinox for Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway (way, way north) and it'll tell you it's on 23rd Sept 2019. Now check sunrise and sunset times for that date and you'll find they're 12:30 apart. The extra 30 minutes is the time it takes for the sun to travel those extra 100 arcminutes.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:26:45 AM »
If I'm not mistaken part of the original posting in this thread was about the distance to the Moon. There is no mention of equinox or equilux or indeed any word beginning equ… so once again we have been led off in another random direction here.  We have as Stack has said all agreed what the equinoxes are and what they mean.  So no more discussion needed on that point. We have provided Somerled with enough evidence/information for him to make his own judgement on that topic.

Back to the matter of the distance to the Moon perhaps?  And the other point made in the OP perhaps.
I don't think this is an entirely random direction. AllAroundTheWorld pointed out that attempting to determine the distance to the moon or sun by triangulation falls apart once you use more than two points and gives inconsistent results on a flat earth. AllAroundTheWorld then provided a link to a metabunk article about an experiment measuring solar noon sun angles on the September equinox. The experiment clearly shows that on a flat earth, attempting to triangulate the sun's position simply doesn't work, debunking the idea of a flat earth. Somerled apparently won't accept this result because it was done on an equinox. This has shifted the goalposts somewhat, but the implication is that if we can convince Somerled that an equinox happens at the same time everywhere, then he'll have to concede that triangulation of the moon using multiple locations will prove the earth isn't flat. Either that or find another excuse explanation.

The other problem with this thread is that Somerled seems to be the only FE'r willing to engage with it and the meaning of equinox seems to be his main sticking point.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 16, 2019, 12:18:12 PM »
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .
No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:
Quote
Even if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.
And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pole to pole flight
« on: July 16, 2019, 10:09:28 AM »
I can not find the flight patch track, where did you get it online?

I saw it at the time on flightaware or one of those sites. I would love to see it plotted on a globe, or disk if you want. Please post if anybody finds one.
If you go here https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QQE11/history/20190709/1332Z/KTTS/UACC you can see a part of the track. There is also a link there to "View track log". Follow that and you get a "Google earth" button. If you click that you can download the data as a KML file and load it into Google Earth as a track.

I did this and downloaded the other parts of the flight as well - here's a series of screenshots. Note that there are quite significant gaps. There's nothing sinister in this, the data is from ADS-B and there are significant black spots in ADS-B coverage around the world. The flight logs will say "Gap in available data" in several places.



15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 16, 2019, 08:54:35 AM »
Nah, it's simpler than that. He (I'm assuming he - apologies if not) thinks you should get exactly 12 hours of daylight on the day of an equinox and he's looking at sunrise and sunset times to determine for himself when equinoxes occur - and getting the wrong answers.
Oh, I understand completely what he's trying to do.  It's not an uncommon argument among FE'ers.  I'm simply pointing out that the exactly equal day/night phenomenon that he (and other FE'ers) thinks should happen at the equinox is actually a real, but less well known phenomenon called the equilux which generally happens a few days before or after the equinox.
I'm still trying to decide whether this is deliberate on his part or not. I just googled "when is the autumnal equinox" which seems a much more straightforward thing to do than looking at sunrise and sunset times in time & date. He's still basically insisting everyone else's definition of equinox is wrong, so I doubt this is simply an honest mistake.

Thanks by the way for introducing a new word - equilux - into my lexicon. It's about the only reason I keep coming on this site TBH, every now and again I pick up something new and interesting. Sadly always from the RE contributors.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 15, 2019, 09:23:53 PM »
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .

I think that you're thinking about the equilux, which is not quite the same thing as the equinox:

Nah, it's simpler than that. He (I'm assuming he - apologies if not) thinks you should get exactly 12 hours of daylight on the day of an equinox and he's looking at sunrise and sunset times to determine for himself when equinoxes occur - and getting the wrong answers. I already pointed him to an explanation of why this is incorrect and why you cannot simply use sunrise and sunset times https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 15, 2019, 09:12:52 PM »
It is glaringly  obvious what the word equinox means - read the blurb on the website which states "the equinoxes mark the exact moment twice a year when the earths axis is not tilted away from or towards the sun. "  But that fact is hidden by a load of waffle . Night/day should be equal - hence the "equinox".

 Have a look at the solstices day/night lengths - by the same waffle these should fall on different days . But they coincide at northern and southern latitudes - the longest day on northern solstice equates to the shortest southern day . Where is the waffle effect ?

Globe theory is smoke and mirrors .
You want to make use of the time & date web site to find sunrise and sunset times to prove your point. You then want to ignore time & date's own explanation for why you should expect more than 12 hours of daylight on an equinox and instead claim their explanation is wrong and it's "glaringly obvious" that an equinox should have exactly 12 hours of daylight. You are cherry picking. Do you trust time & date or don't you?

You can't just invent your own rules for an equinox, claim everything is "glaringly obvious" when what you say contradicts the very sources you've used to justify your position and then claim globe theory is smoke and mirrors.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 15, 2019, 05:37:17 PM »
The equinox means equal day/night length . Check on time and date sunrise/set times and you will see that equinox occurs at different times in the north and south at corresponding latitudes . These are based on actual timings of sunrise and sunset . The theory that these equinoxes occur when earth is at two opposing point in its solar orbit does not correspond to reality .

If the day/night lengths are not the same then it is not an equinox . Pretending that the equinox is in between somewhere does not solve this problem for globe theory.
Well I'm afraid that all you've demonstrated is that you don't know how an equinox is defined. Sunrise and sunset times aren't used to define an equinox. An equinox is timed from when the geometric centre of the sun's disk appears above the horizon to when it disappears. Sunrise however occurs when the sun first appears on the horizon and sunset when the last part of the sun disappears. It takes a while from sunrise until the geometric centre of the sun appears and sunset occurs some time after the geometric centre disappears from view, so on an equinox, you will get more than 12 hours of daylight (sunrise to sunset). How much more depends on where you are. If the sun rises vertically, this will take far less time than if it is rising at a shallow angle.

You've claimed "without doubt...", however you didn't bother to check the true meaning of the word equinox and how it is determined.

You also claimed "anyone can check.." using time and date, without bothering to read what they actually say there about equinoxes.

I'd recommend you go back to time & date (which you obviously trust) and read what they have to say about the matter. https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 15, 2019, 03:20:34 PM »
The metabunk observations were done at equinox . It is without doubt that southern "hemisphere " equinox occurs later than the northern one . Anyone can check this out - time and date website will verify this.
Well I for one was surprised to hear this, so I checked https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/autumnal-equinox.html and according to them the autumnal equinox this year will be Monday, 23 September 2019, 07:50 UTC. The only adjustment you'd need to make for location would be if you wanted this in local time. So for instance if you were interested in New Zealand (Southern "hemisphere" last time I checked), you'd need to add 12 hours to adjust from UTC to New Zealand local time.

20
So there you have it, measure a degree of longitude at various latitudes either side of the equator and see if the results match a globe or a flat (AE/Gleason style model) earth. Assuming the results favour a globe, this at the very least undermines one of the flat earth models and Rowbotham's own convictions. Remember, this is Rowbotham's own idea.

In Rowbotham's day this would have been an absurdly expensive and dangerous undertaking. These days we can do it from home for ourselves with google maps, streetview etc. or phone a friend if we have one in a convenient location.

Norwood did this in the 1600s, and all it took was to walk from London to York, measure between, and be in each location on the same day of (in consecutive years) the year to sight to the Sun. Rowbotham came along 200 years later, by which time European and British exploration of foreign territories was well established, surely?

I was assuming that Rowbotham or one of his supporters would have to perform this experiment themselves as they did with the Bedford Levels experiment. This would involve quite a bit of travelling, to the equatorial regions - Africa or South America, neither of which were exactly a day out in the park in the 1850s/1860s and then on to (probably) Australia as well. Quite a voyage to contemplate back then. Potentially risky and certainly expensive. Rowbotham suggests the experiment, but doesn't seem to leap at the idea of actually performing it. It is certainly the case that it's a considerably easier undertaking these days.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >