*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2018, 12:10:21 AM »
Because that's the direct line of sight on a globe.

Take a globe. Stretch a string from Punta Arenas to that spot on the Tropic of Capricorn just west of Madagascar. That's the path.

We can make straight lines between any two points on that globe. That doesn't mean that the sun can rise out of the North Pole if it is circling the equator.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 01:29:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2018, 12:12:01 AM »
Because that's the direct line of sight on a globe.

Take a globe. Stretch a string from Punta Arenas to that spot on the Tropic of Capricorn just west of Madagascar. That's the path.

We can make straight lines between any two points on that globe. That doesn't mean that the sun can rise out of the North Pole if it is circling the equator.

That's correct. It doesn't mean that. I don't know how to respond to that otherwise. I don't understand how that follows what I'm explaining.

Edit: Maybe the error is "any two points." We're not taking "any two points." We're taking a point where sunrise is being observed and a point on the earth over which the sun is when that sunrise is being observed.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 12:13:43 AM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2018, 12:24:26 AM »
I wanted to see if my estimate using SunCalc of the sun's position at the time of sunrise in Punta Arenas was corroborated by TimeandDate and the NOAA Solar Calculator.

TimeandDate provided me with a sun location of -23.37, 56.35. Check.



NOAA Solar Calculator says the sun was at an elevation of 89.98° over that spot at that time. Check.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2018, 12:55:42 AM »
Here's a rough approximation of what the observation would look like in Bilsin's FE model:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2018, 03:05:41 AM »
Here is the earth. The lines of latitude represent East and West:



Now, at Winter Solstice the earth is tilted by 23.5 degrees, giving summer to the south:



The maximum angle the sun can be below East is 23.5 degrees:



Yet, we saw that the sun was rising from an angle below East lower than that.

From Suncalc:



Time and Date has the sun rising from 135 Degrees East of North:



East is 90 degrees East of North.

90 + 23.5 = 113.5 Degrees East of North. 113.5 Degrees should be the max. Yet we see above that, according to these tools, the sun is rising from 135 Degrees East from North.

Why is the sun appearing so far south?
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 03:53:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2018, 03:10:08 AM »
Why is the sun appearing so far south?
I don't know how else to explain it. Let me think on how else to illustrate it or get the point across.

In the meantime, answer me this? Do you deny that the sun IS actually rising on that bearing? Are you saying that Suncalc is wrong?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2018, 04:30:26 AM »
Here is the earth. The lines of latitude represent East and West:

<snip>

Why is the sun appearing so far south?
Don't forget that, except or the equator, lines of latitude are not great circles and therefore are not useful for representing lines of sight.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2018, 04:48:44 AM »
Here is the earth. The lines of latitude represent East and West:

<snip>

Why is the sun appearing so far south?
Don't forget that, except or the equator, lines of latitude are not great circles and therefore are not useful for representing lines of sight.

I think to your point, I went into google earth, arrived at Punta Arenas. Oriented my view so that I was facing due East. Then drew a line of sight line heading East making sure I maintained 90 degrees from start to finish. Here's what my due East line of sight looks like (Red line):

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2018, 05:07:28 AM »
Since when did you have to travel North to go East?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2018, 05:18:26 AM »
In the meantime, answer me this? Do you deny that the sun IS actually rising on that bearing? Are you saying that Suncalc is wrong?

Here's a comparable situation to Punta Arenas near the Winter Solstice.
This is what SunCalc says was the direction of the setting sun from a spot near Nenana, Alaska a week past the 2017 Summer Solstice, according to SunCalc.



Agreed? Same question ought to be applicable. How can the sun appear to be setting so far north when it is near the Tropic of Cancer (over Saudi Arabia, according to Suncalc).

Nenana is further north (N64+°) than Punta Arenas is south (S53°).

Is SunCalc's data trustworthy?

I'm presenting this scenario because I wasn't in Punta Arenas this morning, but I was passing through Nenana, AK at 12:55AM on 28 June, 2017 and took this photo:



EXIF Data:
Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎28‎, ‎2017 12:55 AM
64.6061861,-149.0889583

That's just past sunset looking toward the NNW when the sun is near the Tropic of Cancer. Suncalc is right.

So back to the question: How is that possible?

On a globe:


On a flat earth:

?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2018, 05:36:39 AM »
Since when did you have to travel North to go East?
The point of stack's illustration is that if you start out eastward at that latitude on a globe, going in a straight line will "curve" to the north. To stay on an easterly heading, you'd have to continue to bear to the right.  That's the globe.  I feel like you're trying to make sense of a globe by thinking it should behave like a flat coordinate system.

Can we at least agree that however Suncalc is coming up with its data, it's accurate? I've provided photographic evidence that it's correct for Alaska & sun at Tropic of Cancer, as Suncalc produced.

If we can do that, then let's spend a little time trying to make sense of it on a flat earth. Not being able to understand how it makes sense on a globe doesn't mean it works on a flat earth by default.  Since I initiated this topic, I've been asking for how it can work on a flat earth. Trying to bust the globe doesn't answer that question.  At least I've tried to help you understand the globe. Would you mind taking some time to help me understand how it can work on a flat earth?

I'm not trying to squelch your questioning how it works on a globe earth. I like trying to explain it. But I think it's only fair that you do the same for me. How can the sun be setting so far north from Nenana near the Summer Solstice and so far south from Punta Arenas near the Winter Solstice according to a flat earth model?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2018, 08:53:52 AM »
It's very difficult to come up with a good visual demonstration that can easily be understood. 



You can appreciate how at the Antarctic circle in December there is no azimuth for sun rise & sun set because the Sun is up 24 hours a day.  Then as you progress North the sunrise & sunset azimuths are very close to South and the angle starts to open up as you progress North.  You can see this with SunCalc.  There's probably an equation for this phenomenon that would accurately describe the azimuth angles but I haven't discovered it yet.  In the mean time you can see what it happening in the video.  Try to imagine yourself on the globe starting out at the Antarctic Circle. You would be in sunlight 24 hours a day.  Now go North a ways.  You would see the sun set at one azimuth and then rise a hour later at very close to the same azimuth.  Since the earth rotates at a constant rate the further North you went the bigger the 'slice of the pie' would become and the bigger the angle would become between the sun set azimuth and the sun rise azimuth. 
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 09:26:58 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2018, 10:07:02 AM »

The maximum angle the sun can be below East is 23.5 degrees:


East is 90 degrees East of North.

[snip]

90 + 23.5 = 113.5 Degrees East of North. 113.5 Degrees should be the max...

I think I see one source of confusion in this incorrect arithmetic/reasoning.

The 23.5° axial tilt is a seasonal thing. It doesn't change much during the course of a day. It's influence on the sun is to give us seasons, which is a earth-orbiting-sun consequence.

The sun's changing azimuth and elevation on a daily basis is due to a different parameter: earth's rotation and is dependent on latitude on the sphere.

To help visualize how azimuth (bearing) changes during the course of a day, he's a few snaps of a globe earth rotating through a 10-hour period from sunrise. The column on the left is a view from the sun's "bird's eye" view. The column on the right is the side view with the sun off to the right:



At any point during the day, the shortest straight line distance across the sphere is a great circle arc between the sun's zenith point and Punta Arenas. See how it shifts as the earth rotates with the sun staying above the Tropic of Capricorn and how it's direction away from Punta Arenas can be southerly when the sun is overhead Madagascar, but then drift quickly northward as the sun rises and the great circle distance becomes shorter.

There's some of the same concept here as the Moon Terminator Illusion we hashed out a few months ago.

Anyway, maybe that graphic above will help segregate the different influences of axial tilt/sun orbit and earth rotation/bearing drift.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2018, 04:57:23 PM »
I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting, with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas, are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.

One can make a line on a globe between Cincinnati and China across the Northern Polar area, but that doesn't mean that the sun can come out of the North Pole. In fact, one can make a line that goes to the South of Cincinnati, around the Southern Polar area to China, just as straight, but that doesn't mean that the sun is going to come out of the South Pole.

The geometry of the Sun-Earth system and the angle of the light rays and the earth seem to say that there are limits to how far north and how far south the sun should appear to the observer.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 05:03:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2018, 05:00:44 PM »
I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.
Have you carried out some measurements of the angle of the sun from various locations?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2018, 05:40:15 PM »
To solve the mystery I think you will have to do the following:
1) In Ushuaia, Argentina sunrise was at about 0153 GMT (say 0200) on 12/22/2018
2) Find the location over the earth of the Sun's zenith point at 0200 on 12/22/2018.  It will be over the Tropic of Capricorn quite a ways to the East.
3) Find the great circle route between those two points.  The route will have an azimuth and distance.

Keep in mind that you don't want to mix up all your time zones.  Probably it would be best to do everything in GMT.  Once you do that you will probably come up with an azimuth that goes a lot further South of East than you would initially suspect because the great circle route is always the shortest distance between two points on a globe.  That doesn't mean that the Sun isn't anywhere but directly over the position of the zenith point at that instant of time.  It just means that the direction you have to look to see it rise might surprise you. 

Since at that time of the year the sky is always lit 24 hours a day to the South of Ushuaia it shouldn't be surprising to see the sky brighten up in a Southerly direction very early in the morning and fool you into thinking that the sun is actually rising over Antarctica.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 07:29:08 PM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2018, 06:39:46 PM »
I believe that the argument with polar views you are posting, with the line going across the Northern or Southern areas, are implicitly assuming that the earth is flat and that the sun is close to the earth.
That is not implicit. To the contrary. If you are at a high enough latitude and the sun is at a high latitude in the same hemisphere but on the other side of the globe, you'll see it over the pole. On earth, that latitude is marked by the Arctic (and Antarctic) Circle. It's why the sun doesn't set to those above the Artic Circle when the sun is transiting at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer. Likewise for the Antarctic Circle and the Tropic of Capricorn.

I can see how that could work on a flat bipolar model of earth, although not at the lines of bearing observed.
I can see how that could work on a flat AE model of the earth, but only for northern latitudes. Southern latitudes appear impossible. And again, the bearings are wrong.

At least as I work it out. If I'm doing it wrong, someone - a sincere advocate for a flat earth model preferably -- should step up and show me how to do it right. 6 days of me asking this question...

One can make a line on a globe between Cincinnati and China across the Northern Polar area, but that doesn't mean that the sun can come out of the North Pole.
Why would one randomly make a line between Cincinnati and China over the Northern Pola area? Is the sun over Cincinnati and an observer in China seeing the sun (or vice versa)? 

In fact, one can make a line that goes to the South of Cincinnati, around the Southern Polar area to China, just as straight, but that doesn't mean that the sun is going to come out of the South Pole.

And that's no surprise, because that's just randomly connecting two points.

The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth. That's on endpoint. Then find the location of an observer who is seeing the sun. That's the other endpoint. Now THOSE two points aren't random. The straight line path over the earth (on a globe) is the great circle arc that connects those two points. That will define the angle/direction an observer is facing in order to be seeing that sun.  And, yes, on a globe, you do sometimes have to face north or south to see a sun that's to the west or east according to longitude.

I showed that in my June 28, 2017 Alaska photo.

I can understand how that can be so on a globe. What I'm asking is how was I seeing the sun setting after midnight to the NNW if the earth was flat?

Use your preferred bipolar model. Was the sun's path like this?


Or this?



Or this?




Or something else? I'm not "fabricating" data here. I'm just offering up some options because I frankly don't know how to do it for a flat earth, and despite my repeated requests, no one is showing me. Simply focusing on how it can or can't be done on a globe doesn't answer the question how it can be done on a flat earth. The earth isn't flat by default if you don't get the globe answer. You still need to compose a flat earth answer.

I've spent a lot of time explaining to you how it CAN work on a globe. You don't get it. Fine.
Now, explain to me how it can work on a flat earth. I might not get it, but at least try to explain it to me as I've tried to explain the globe to you.

The geometry of the Sun-Earth system and the angle of the light rays and the earth seem to say that there are limits to how far north and how far south the sun should appear to the observer.]
Yes, there are. You are right about that. You can't just take any two points on a globe, draw a great circle arc line between them and think my globe explanation means the sun at one point will appear along that line to an observer at the other point. I don't know why you think that should be the case given what I've explained.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1080
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2018, 10:53:50 PM »
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2018, 11:24:37 PM »
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?

Here's my interpretation. Each red line in the image represents me looking East from Punta Arenas, Chile yesterday at sunrise. Suncalc has the sun directly over a little East of Madagascar. I’m kind of guessing as to what looking East on the AE and Bi-Polar FE models looks like. Feel free to correct. The globe model matches Suncalc's observable sun path, the FE models do not. So a couple of things:

- Is Suncalc not correct, meaning it is an inaccurate tool?
- Should I be looking at the FE models differently?


Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Matching Observed Alignment of the Sun on Earth Models
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2018, 11:41:18 PM »
The non-random approach is to first identify the location of the sun over the earth.
I'm still having a problem with the 'over the earth' idea. I think it means, the unique place where the sun is directly overhead. There will be such a place on both flat earth and globe earth. Is that what is meant?
Yes.

Where the sun occupies an observer's zenith.