### 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 - Edgar Alan Hoe

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane
« on: May 22, 2018, 07:36:57 AM »
Funny thing is being woke is very nearly indistinguishable from being delusional...

2
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 30, 2018, 07:22:36 AM »
Quote
Response: The Solar Day, which is the rate the sun moves around a static earth (once per 24 hours), can also be thought of as the rate of the earth's rotation against a static sun (once per 24 hours).

At Day 365 the lit side of the earth is pointing at the sun. At Day 365.24, with a static sun, the lit side stays pointed at the sun and earth has simply rotates a quarter of the way around while the lit side remains pointing at the sun.

There is another problem with this response. We can't assume a static sun that is casting light in one direction on a spinning ball. In the scenario the earth is spinning at 24 hours per day and it is also going around the sun. The lit area isn't static on the earth over the year. This is another variable and messes up the assumption in that response.

The scenario doesn't work if we think of the lit portion of the earth is spinning at once per day. It doesn't line up with the sun on the diagram at the end.

Nor does it work if we think of a sun that is going around the earth. Same as above. It doesn't line up in the end on a diagram.

It might seemingly work if you think of a static sun and spinning earth; but that is not taking into account the geometrical nature of the the circular orbit and the illumination of light - that light isn't static on the spinning ball. There is more work that needs to be done there.

Sorry, why would we be considering a static sun casting light in just one direction? I'm not sure what model that represents.

Also could you clarify that last paragraph? The light isn't static on a spinning ball?

I think one thing that is over complicating this discussion is the switching between ref points of what is moving and what is static.

As your point is attempting to show a problem with a heliocentric globe earth it may help the discussion to stick to a spinning earth orbiting a static sun.

Just a suggestion.

3
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 27, 2018, 07:42:34 AM »
He already knows. Anyone past the 5th grade would have understood by now, and clearly Tom is not stupid.
You say that...he thinks that shadows change angle because of perspective and that spectroscopy is looking at something and thinking "ooh, that's a bit red".
There are a load of things he doesn't seem to understand but thinks he understands.

But...yeah, maybe he does understand and is having fun. Which is fine, other people will see the arguments for what they are.

Other people will also see the debate as some kind of validation for his nonsense assertion.

Isn't there a risk that debating nonsense makes everyone a little dumber.

4
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 27, 2018, 07:31:40 AM »

This is getting to be genuinely funny now.

Seeing us all try dozens of ways to explain the same thing to Tom over and over again, while Tom finds ever more creative ways to sidestep those explanations and keep the debate going.

At this point it is so clear that Tom is yanking our collective chain that I'm now more interested in why people are still trying to explain this to him?

He already knows. Anyone past the 5th grade would have understood by now, and clearly Tom is not stupid.

5
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 26, 2018, 06:23:36 AM »
I was editing my post and lost one. Here it is again. I added on to it at the bottom.

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

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

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

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

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

Go here:

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

Dear Tom

You owe me about 30 mins of my life.

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

6
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 25, 2018, 09:01:48 AM »
I thought your problem was the 12 hour offset at the halfway mark of the earth’s orbit around the sun. That’s explained by the difference between sidereal and solar day references.

That's a problem as well, but the discussion has progressed to showing that the Solar Day does not fit into the number of Solar Days in a Solar Year.

Quote
If sidereal has nothing to do with it, then what’s the problem again? “The solar day doesn’t fit into the solar year?” What does that mean? Are the “extra hours” you’re now talking about the 0.24 day tacked onto the 356 day solar year? That’s a different issue. A different problem.]If sidereal has nothing to do with it, then what’s the problem again? “The solar day doesn’t fit into the solar year?” What does that mean? Are the “extra hours” you’re now talking about the 0.24 day tacked onto the 356 day solar year? That’s a different issue. A different problem.

Yes. The .24 come out of nowhere and don't match up with the Solar Year where the sun needs to return to the point of the Equinox.

Quote
Following your link to The Problem, I see you state “The sun needs to return back to the same position every year in a Solar Year.” It doesn’t “need to.” I know for the sake of tidiness it would be nice if it did. There’d be no need for leap days or leap years. But it doesn’t line up that neatly because it doesn’t “need to” just to make it easy for us. It’s close enough that we barely notice it at first, but the mismatch between solar day and solar year can add up over time, thus the need to “catch up” with leaps.

The Solar Year is defined by the time it takes for the sun to return to the Equinox. The number of Solar Days in a Solar Year needs to match up.

Quote
If those are the “extra hours” then yes. That IS different from what I’ve been trying to explain about the NYC half year “problem” you started with. Those ARE extra hours, needed BECAUSE the solar days don’t “fit” the solar year in a nice, whole number of 365. The earth, on that 365th solar day is coming up just a bit short from where it began, relative to the sun.

The Sun needs to get back to the point of the Equinox under the definition of a Solar Year. It has to match up with the Solar Day.

Equinox is just the sun passing the equatorial plane, its not a fixed point.

7
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 25, 2018, 07:22:31 AM »

Thank you. The difference is stated in these links:

From: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion3/sidereal_synodic.html

Quote
A sidereal year is the time it takes for the sun to return to the same position with respect to the stars. Due to the precession of the equinoxes the sidereal year is about 20 minutes longer than the tropical year.

That's the difference between a sidereal year and a solar (tropical year). Different from a sidereal day and solar day.

I understand the confusion, but you're mixing terms. (Not units of measurement; just terms.) There's a rotation of the earth (days) and there's orbital rotation (years). Each has a difference measurement based on whether sun is a reference point or a distant star field. The solar day is different from the sidereal day for one reason. The solar year is different from the sidereal year for others.

All I'm trying to say is make sure when doing your calculations you're using the same terms; convert if necessary, so that you're not dividing the time parameters into non-agreeing angular parameters. There are two "circles": earth's rotation and earth's orbit. If using sidereal for either, stick with the time intervals for sidereal angular displacement. If using solar, apply the solar time intervals. If relating the two, use proper conversion.

Yes, I am using Solar Days and Solar Years in the equation. I do not believe that I am mixing up terms. The Mean Solar Day has 24 hours and the Mean Solar Year has 365.24 years.

The sun travels across the earth's surface once each day. In Solar Time: There is 1 Solar Day in 24 Hours. There are 365.24 Days in a Solar Year.

Earth circumference = 24,901 mi. In 1 Day the sun travels over 24,901 mi. of earth.

24,901 / 24 = 1037.54166667 miles. Over 1 hour the sun travels over 1037.54166667 miles

After 365 days:  24,901 mi. x 365 days = 9088865 miles

After 365.24 days:  24901 x 365.24 = 9094841.24 miles

Difference = 5976.24 miles

5976.24 miles / 1037.54166667 miles = 5.76. The hours in miles fits into the difference by 5.76 times. Where are those extra hours coming from? The sun will not be in the same place over the earth.
Ah, I think I found it, and wouldn't you know it's something I already said earlier, but you ignored. A Solar Year is the time between the sun being in the same 'place' in the sky to it being there again. But, as mentioned in the definition for Solar Year, 'place' is defined as the ecliptic. The ecliptic being an arc of the sky. In the case of the winter solstice, this is the arc where the sun is lowest in the sky. For the summer, it's the opposite. For the equinoxes, it's the one right in between. Solar Year carries no reference to a point above the Earth. It's the ecliptic of the sky. Solar Day carries the connotation of the sun being above a certain line/point of the Earth. I believe if you look, you'll see that the difference you've noted is about 1/4 the circumference of the Earth. Which is why a year contains about an extra 1/4 of a Solar Day. Hence why our calendar includes leap years, to keep solstices and equinoxes at about the same time of the calendar year, every year. Otherwise we would slowly drift until January was summer in the North, and then back again.

Can you quote something that says what you are saying about the ecleptic? The Solar Year is a place where the ecleptic crosses the celestial equator. That is a point in space, not "on an arc". See my post above that has a quote for how the Solar Year is defined. It goes back to the same point every year and the variation of the terms in question is extremely little.

The Solar Year is 365.24. Right. Where does that .24 come from? That's over 5 hours. Almost 6. Saying "The solar year has .24 at the end, that's where it comes from" is not the answer to this. The sun won't be in the same spot at the end of the year.

What is your definition of the sun being 'in the same spot'? The same spot relative to what?

You keep saying the sun should return to the same position but are not really defining what that position is.

As far as I know the only requirement is that the sun should cross the celestial equator... not that it be over a certain longitude.

8
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 24, 2018, 09:34:50 PM »
I will attempt an explanation.

--- --- ---

Step 1.

If you take a circle that is 360 degrees around and imagine that each of those degrees had 24 sub units in it (lets call them Sub-Degrees). 24 Sub-Degrees should fit neatly into the 360 degree circle.

360 degrees / 24 sub-degrees = 15

The result should be a whole number.

The 360 degree circle is the higher hierarchical entity of the sub-degree, similar to how 100% of a pie is the higher hierarchical entity of the pie slices that fit within it.

--- --- ---

Step 2.

Now lets cut the line of the circle in Step 1. and lay the line out flat on a flat surface. Lets also rename Degrees to Mega-Lengths and Sub-Degrees to Sub-Lengths now for less confusion.

We have a line that is 360 Mega-Legths. Each Mega-Length has 24 Sub-Lengths in it.

360 Mega-Lengths / 24 Sub-Lengths = 15

The Sub-Length needs to fit into the 360 Mega-Length. Same thing, we are just visualizing it as lengths now to show that the scenario can be laid out flat.

--- --- ---

Step 3.

The 365.24 days year is like that 360 degree circle. The extra 5.24 days was added for for, I believe, the elongation of the earth's route along the sun.

It's an oval. But ovals still have 360 degrees in them, so the analogy with Step 1 is maintained.

Lets now consider the 365.24 day year as the length of the oval. We can call the days Mega-Lengths and the hours Sub-Lengths for less confusion.

Now cut the oval and lay the lines down on a flat surface. We are working with lengths now, like the in Step 2.

We have 365.24 Mega-Lengths.

We want to see if 24 Sub-Lengths fit into it..

365.24 / 24 = 15.21

This is not a whole number. The Sub-Length does not fit into the whole Mega-Length.

--- --- ---

Does that make a little more sense?

The earth doesn't orbit the sun at a constant speed, so how would that ever work unless the earths spin varied its speed to match?

9
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 24, 2018, 05:56:22 PM »
Dear Mr. Bishop,
Could you, please, help me understand why you think a single orbit around the Sun should consist of an integer of rotations (of the Earth, of course)? Thank you.

I second that request.

10
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 24, 2018, 07:18:37 AM »
Tom is messing with us, he knows full well what he's saying is nonsense but he obviously gets a kick out of the confusion he causes.

I'm not feeding this particular troll anymore.

11
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 23, 2018, 06:44:19 PM »
No-one but you is saying that a solar day should fit exactly into a solar year though.

This is extraordinary.

12
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 23, 2018, 06:03:34 PM »
So are you saying that you believe the number of times the planet spins on its axis should fit into a single orbit the planet takes around the sun nice and neatly?

If so, then why do you feel this should be the case?

I genuinely don't get it.

Look into definitions of Solar Time and Solar Year and Solar Day. We have quoted them in this thread.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year --

Quote
A tropical year (also known as a solar year) is the time that the Sun takes to return to the same position in the cycle of seasons, as seen from Earth; for example, the time from vernal equinox to vernal equinox, or from summer solstice to summer solstice.

We looked at the real numbers earlier in this thread.

The rest of this thread seems to be just clarification about how division and ratios work, to check if the math of dividing years by days was correct.

What are you trying to prove here Tom? That there isn't a whole number of days in one orbital year/period? We know this, hence leap year. That this somehow invalidates...something? How? Why? What? Why can't the rate of rotation NOT be an even ratio to the rate of orbit? What prevents this?

Look up the definition of a Solar Year. The sun needs to return to its same position. Solar Noon needs to be the same after a Solar Year.

Surely the point is that the sun is in the same position, but the earth is at a different rotation because the earths rotation is not linked to its orbit.

13
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 23, 2018, 05:38:19 PM »
The problem you seem to have with the above account with the MiniSlices example, is why am I using the 365.24 / 24 at the end? Years and hours?

Well, that is the same ratio as if we multiplies both of the numbers by 24 and found the lowest common denominator.

1 Slice = 24 Minislices

365.24 x 24 = 8765.76 hours in the year
24 x 24 = 576 hours in 24 days (24 days picked because we need equivalence to the ratio)

A ratio of 8765.76 / 576 is equivalent to 365.24 / 24.

8765.76 / 576 = 15.21

365.24 / 24 = 15.21

Equivelent

So are you saying that you believe the number of times the planet spins on its axis should fit into a single orbit the planet takes around the sun nice and neatly?

If so, then why do you feel this should be the case?

I genuinely don't get it.

14
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 23, 2018, 02:57:06 PM »
If a Solar Day can't fit into a Solar Year, that is a huge problem. Where are those extra hours coming from?
If a Solar Day is how long it takes the earth to rotate on its axis.
And a Solar Year is how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun.

Why must the ratio of those be an integer? That implies that for every orbit the earth makes of the sun it rotates exactly 'x' times, and x is an integer.
Why should it be? The rotation speed (which, by the way, does change over time, very slowly) and orbit speed are determined by all kinds of things, there is no reason the ratio should be an integer.

Division of the number of days in a year and the number of hours in a day ( Days in a Year / Hrs in a Day ) must be a whole number because each Day in the Year is a representative of 24 Hours. If this is true then the ratios must relate.

Imagine that we had a planet with a Solar Day that was a 10 hour day.

Imagine that that the Solar Year year of this planet was 100 days.

Lets define Solar Year as the time it takes for the Sun to return back to the same place in the sky in Solar Time. This means that each of the days in the year must be full rotations.

Does a Solar Day fit into a Solar Year?

100 / 10 = 10. Yes. A solar day fits into a Solar Year.

If we mess around those numbers, a solar day no longer fits into a Solar Year.

142 / 10 = 14.2. A solar day does not fit into a Solar Year.

100 / 7 = 16.6. A solar day does not fit into a Solar Year.

A result of a whole number shows that the second value fits into the first value. The only types of Years a 10 hour day would return whole numbers in such a division.

A 10 hour day can fit into a 10 day year (10 / 10 = 1), a twenty day year ( 20 / 10 = 2 ),  but not a 25 day year ( 25 / 10 = 2.5 ).

Each 10 doesn't fit nicely into the 25, and the result is 2.5. The Solar Days have not been completed by the time the planet makes its way to the end.

It doesn't make a difference if we call them planets and years or dimes and pennies. The relationship is defined and must be maintained.

Relationship: 100 pennies is 10 dimes. There are 10 pennies in a dime.

We have 142 pennies and 10 dimes. Does the relationship work?

142 pennies / 10 dimes = 14.2. This is not a whole number. 10 dimes does not fit into a value that is 142 pennies.

100 pennies / 7 dimes = 16.2. This is not a whole number. 7 dimes does not fit into a value that is 100 pennies.

10 dimes can fit into 10 pennies (10 / 10 = 1), 20 pennies (20 / 10 = 2), but it cannot fit into 25 pennies (25 / 10 = 2.5).

10 dimes doesn't fit nicely into the 25, and the result is 2.5.

So you're saying there should be some fixed relationship between a planets orbit around the Sun and a planets rotation on its own axis, is that right?

15
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 23, 2018, 09:44:10 AM »
There is something that seems wrong with the way the earth rotates around the Sun. Consider the following image that we are taught in school:

Assume that New York City is in its Solar Noon (look at where New York City is in the top and bottom September and March figures in the above illustration). After 6 months the motions suggests that New York City will be in darkness during its noontime.

Some Rough Calculations

Napkin Calculation 1

Day = 24 hours
Year = 365 days

365 days / 2 = 182.5 days in 6 months
24 hours x 182.5 days = 4380 hours in 6 months
4380 hours / 360 (since the sun rotates around the earth 360 degrees in one day) = 12.16666 hour offset

Earth should be offset by 12.16666 hours (similar to the above image)? NYC should be in night?

--- --- ---

Napkin Calculation 2

According to RET particulars, the earth doesn't rotate at exactly 24 hours a day, and the earth doesn't have an exactly 365 day year, which is why we have to change times and add a leap year every 4 years.

Sidreal Day = 23.933333 hours
Sidreal Year = 365.25636 days

365.25636 days per year / 2 = 182.62818 days in 6 months
23.933333 hours per day x 182.62818 days = 4370.90104712394 hours in 6 months
4370.90104712394  / 360 (since the sun rotates around the earth 360 degrees in one day) = 12.14139179 hours offset

Earth should be offset by 12.14139179 hours? NYC should be in night?

--- --- ---

Napkin Calculation 3

Some sources say that the earth "actually" rotates 360.98 degrees per day.

360.98 degrees in a day x 182.62818 days in 6 months
= 65925.1204164 degrees in 6 months
ans / 360.98 = offset is 183.62818 degrees.

Earth should be offset by 183.62818 degrees? NYC should be in night?

--- --- ---

Corrections with the 360.98 figure

Using 360.98 degrees per day in the second calculation, replacing 360 with 360.98, gives an offset of 12.1082 hours. The offset still says that NYC should be in night.

Replacing 360 with 360.98 in the third calculation gives an offset answer of 182.625 degrees. The offset still says that NYC should be in night.

---

I may be going about this entirely wrong. Can I have some help with this seemingly glaring problem?

Why should the time it takes for the earth to spin on its axis fit in to how long it takes the Earth to orbit the Sun?

I must be misunderstanding something here otherwise you've gotten yourself into a muddle.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« on: April 16, 2018, 10:17:19 AM »
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?

Rowbotham was a doctor. Please stop disparaging his name. Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review. You can look into that.

Also, heroin in cough medicine did work and was studied to be safe. Do you think that the medical system of the 1800's didn't study the safety of drugs before giving them to people?

Most of the "lol, doctors used to do this" crap is based on personal ignorance.

The opium poppy, from which Herioin is extracted, has been cultivated for more than five thousand years for a variety of medicinal uses. Heroin is still  today for legal medical purposes. Doctors often prefer to give patients heroin over morphine because it is fat soluble.

Just because some people abused Heroin and it was decided to stop making it easily accessible to the public over the counter, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate medical purpose. You can take your dumb anecdotes and personal ignorance elsewhere.

Anyway, to sum up, no, you can't name any other sources for this idea you have picked up as to how perspective works.

So Rowbotham is the only source for this? No one else has indipendantly arrived at this idea, but have just taken Rowbothams word for it?

I think at best using this info in debates holds as much water as stating 'it's true 'cause my mate said so'...

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« on: April 16, 2018, 08:12:44 AM »
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?

Rowbotham was a doctor. Please stop disparaging his name. Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review. You can look into that.

Also, heroin in cough medicine did work and was studied to be safe. Do you think that the medical system of the 1800's didn't study the safety of drugs before giving them to people?

Most of the "lol, doctors used to do this" crap is based on personal ignorance.

The opium poppy, from which Herioin is extracted, has been cultivated for more than five thousand years for a variety of medicinal uses. Heroin is still  today for legal medical purposes. Doctors often prefer to give patients heroin over morphine because it is fat soluble.

Just because some people abused Heroin and it was decided to stop making it easily accessible to the public over the counter, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate medical purpose.

No Tom, heroin is a highly addictive substance that should never have been handed out to people for the treatment of coughs and colds.

And Rowbotham was not a doctor and made stuff up under the pretense of science and so deserves to be disparaged.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« on: April 16, 2018, 07:41:37 AM »
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« on: April 15, 2018, 09:17:58 AM »
Funny, I can't appear to find any reference to him online as Dr Samuel Rowbotham.