shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2018, 10:39:50 PM »
Quote
The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude


Absolutely and any planetarium program worth its salt will show that to be true. I have just tested it using StarryNight Pro Plus v8 which is one of the more expensive ones and I use it to control my telescope (as I am doing right now) and it is very accurate.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2018, 10:47:01 PM »
Quote
The claim is that at the equinox, the direction of the sun upon rising is independent of latitude


Absolutely and any planetarium program worth its salt will show that to be true. I have just tested it using StarryNight Pro Plus v8 which is one of the more expensive ones and I use it to control my telescope (as I am doing right now) and it is very accurate.
Tom is correct in that there are tiny differences depending on latitude, i.e. of the order of minutes of a degree.

It is a common objection to mainstream science that if any inaccuracy is found, then it is 'wrong'. Tom made a similar objection to the measurement of gravitational acceleration when he found differences of microgals, which is an incredibly small amount.

But the fact remains that the azimuth of the sun is e.g. 90 degrees at the equator, and 90 degrees minus 14 minutes or so at the poles, during equinox .

How does flat earth theory explain this??

[edit] From the Wiki
Quote
The Round Earth Theory is unable to be justified with a prediction which fits reality.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
And the Flat Earth theory predicts what? And how?

Science aims for the best fit. In choosing between competing theories Science prefers the theory which gives the most accurate and the most economical explanation. In choosing between claims which have no theoretical explanation at all, Science prefers the claim supported by a theoretical explanation.

The FE claim here is not supported by any explanation or theory. So Science prefers a reasonably accurate theoretical explanation.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 10:54:13 PM by edby »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2018, 11:15:41 PM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 11:17:45 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6507
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2018, 11:24:11 PM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 11:33:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2018, 11:46:19 PM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.

I'm not seeing anything in the wiki link that states how observations of an extremely 'eastward' sunrise at the equinox works for a flat earth. I've read ENAG, nothing there either of any substance. So how does the observation work for FE?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3803
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2018, 11:54:14 PM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
Actually, it looks like you already have.  From your wiki entry:
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.
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 Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2018, 12:16:39 AM »
The sources in the article say that is wrong.
No. The article is modifying globe earth no-atmosphere generality with globe-earth-with-atmosphere minor variability due to "magic wand" refraction.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

But, in response to the quibbling, I'll retract the "due" from the "east." You continue to persist in the logical fallacy that if the globe model can be "busted" the flat model gains veracity. I've yet to see the flat model explain easterly sunrises for all latitudes anywhere close to the range of these minor atmosphere-caused deviations from "due."
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 12:27:12 AM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6507
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2018, 12:22:03 AM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
Actually, it looks like you already have.  From your wiki entry:
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.

Based on what data?

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3803
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2018, 12:43:36 AM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
Actually, it looks like you already have.  From your wiki entry:
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.

Based on what data?
You found the source and put it in the wiki, so you tell us.
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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6507
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2018, 12:50:48 AM »
That's false. The day the sun is at its most Eastwards is likely latitude dependant, and happens on different days, just like the time of equal day and night.
You said "that's false" then said a false thing.

On the day of Equinox the sun rises due east for observers at all latitudes for which there is a sun rise, unless you mean something else by "sun at its most Eastwards."

It's not latitude-dependent, likely or otherwise. Equinox is the same day for all different latitudes, and sun rises on a due east bearing for all.

The sources in the article say that is wrong.

For the arguments of "it's only a little wrong", you should first probably  demonstrate how wrong it is world-wide.
Actually, it looks like you already have.  From your wiki entry:
http://www.birka.nur.nu/prayertimes/prayertimes-references/quoted/sampson_Astronomical-refraction_2000JRASC__94___26S.pdf

It seems that your own source says that the error due to refraction is negligible near the equator and only significant at latitudes of around 65 degrees or more.

Based on what data?
You found the source and put it in the wiki, so you tell us.

The wiki makes mention that they don't provide their data.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 05:33:54 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #50 on: December 30, 2018, 10:33:10 AM »
Regarding the 'inaccuracy', see the table below showing the bearing of the sun at sunrise on 20 Mar 2019, longitude W35 20', latitudes from N90 to S90.

You see the bearing is not exactly 09 degrees at every latitude. This cannot be due to refraction, as it is an expected value based on RET. I notice the variance depends on longitude, and I suspect it is due to the problem of finding a circle of longitude that is exactly perpendicular to the (nearly) parallel sun rays striking it.

Is this a fatal problem for RET? No. Does it present difficulties for FET? Yes. To the unaided eye, which is what Zetetics is about, the sun will appear due East at sunrise from every latitude at the equinox. Given that there must be a unique point on the flat earth where the sun is directly overhead, how do we explain that fact?

Remember my point above. Science prefers a theory that gives an approximately right answer to one that gives an answer that is exactly wrong, or which gives no answer at all.

90, 90
80, 90.03
70, 90.07
60, 90.1
50, 90.13
40, 90.17
30, 90.18
20, 90.2
10, 90.22
0, 90.22
-10, 90.22
-20, 90.2
-30, 90.18
-40, 90.15
-50, 90.13
-60, 90.1
-70, 90.07
-80, 90.03
-90, 90

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #51 on: December 30, 2018, 10:56:10 AM »
I think I have cracked this. 'Equinox' is a term encompassing a whole day and whole night. But there is only one unique point in time, and a unique circle of longitude which will be exactly perpendicular to the sun rays. For every other time during the equinox, and for every circle of longitude, the rays will be slightly out of perpendicular. That's according to RET of course.

The wiki is misleading in this respect. Everything it describes is perfectly consistent with RET, yet it suggest RET is somehow wrong. For example
Quote
Round Earth proponents have popularly made two claims for this day:
- The sun will rise from the east on this day for all locations on earth
- The earth will experience equal times of day and night
We find, however, both of these claims to be untrue.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Equinox
However, while it may be true that Round Earth proponents have ‘popularly made’ such claims, it does not follow that Science makes such a claim. Find a source for such a claim. Indeed one of the claims quotes Russel D. Sampson of the University of Alberta who ‘informs us that the sun does not actually rise due east on the equinox’. That’s odd. Why is the wiki claiming that ‘Round Earth proponents’ are making such claims, when here is a round earth proponent who denies that claim?

I assume that Russ Sampson does not believe in a Flat Earth. He has an article about the subject of the Equinox here.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 11:04:44 AM by edby »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #52 on: December 30, 2018, 10:58:59 AM »
The equinox does not even break out of the 90 degree spread regardless of latitude. Hard to say you can get that much more due-ish East than that. So the question remains, knowing what we know from an RET perspective, how does this observation work on a flat earth? To date, I haven't seen an explanation yet. A 32 mile wide, 3000 mile high sun is not going rise within the 90 degree easterly spread circling the equator for every latitude, not even close. Which means it doesn't match observations. Which means, well, some FE explanation is required.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #53 on: December 30, 2018, 11:44:35 AM »
Further. We need to find the exact time at which the sun ‘crosses’ the equator. At this time, both poles will be equidistant from the sun. It follows that there is a unique point on the equator lying at the same distance, defining a unique circle of longitude. Every point on this circle will be exactly perpendicular to the passage of light from the sun.

For March 2019, that time is 21:58 UTC. The unique longitude (i.e. at which sunrise will be observed) is E 122 23’.  The direction i.e. azimuth of the sun will constant at all latitudes for the same longitude. So, no problem with RET.

The article by Sampson is not addressing the theoretical position of the Sun at sunrise but rather the observed position due to refraction. This will make the Sun appear slightly higher than it actually is, which throws out the timing slightly, which in turn affects the observed azimuth (because the sun is moving, hence changing azimuth, as it rises).

There is absolutely no flaw in scientific theory that I can find. So the wiki’s negative claim is false. It may be true that certain RET proponents are making false claims, but that does not logically imply that RET is false.

Moreover the wiki has no positive claim, i.e. no underlying model for the observations.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 461
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2018, 03:30:25 PM »
Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
The Permaculture Institute is a bunch of hippie type low impact farming proponents and not an acceptable source of reliable information on astronomical phenomenon.   Your using them to substantiate your nonsense is a glaringly pathetic joke.  Please find something from the Royal Astronomical Society or university astronomy department.

I've been through your wiki from end to end and side to side.  There is nothing in there except ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.  In fact, claims that are impossible to substantiate at all.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 03:33:53 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2018, 04:01:13 PM »
Quote
Further. We need to find the exact time at which the sun ‘crosses’ the equator

I use this link to do that...  https://heavens-above.com/sun.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=UCT

If you change your geographical location you will see that the time of the equinoxes and solstice times do not change.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2018, 04:35:48 PM »
Linked in what you quoted. The exactly East on Equinox claim is admitted to be wrong.
The Permaculture Institute is a bunch of hippie type low impact farming proponents and not an acceptable source of reliable information on astronomical phenomenon.   Your using them to substantiate your nonsense is a glaringly pathetic joke.  Please find something from the Royal Astronomical Society or university astronomy department.

I've been through your wiki from end to end and side to side.  There is nothing in there except ridiculous unsubstantiated claims.  In fact, claims that are impossible to substantiate at all.
To be fair, Russell Sampson is a mainstream astronomer, teaching at a University department. However his article is merely addressing the observed position due to refraction, as I noted above. He supports, rather than challenges, mainstream science.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2018, 04:46:35 PM »
And here is a beautiful Zetetic result shown in a picture from an old paper. See below.

Shadows during the equinox will maintain a constant East-West direction (or if Pete objects to this statement, let's say the shadows will not move at all). If there is a light snowfall before sunrise during the equinox, then the snow will not melt in the shadow, and so will form lines cast by lamp posts e.g. No equipment required, no instrumentation.

So how does FE explain this? It can’t be anything to do with perspective, since the position of the shadow is independent of line of sight. Why does a sun travelling with a circular motion cast a motionless shadow?


« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 04:48:33 PM by edby »

shootingstar

Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2018, 04:57:18 PM »
Quote
And here is a beautiful Zetetic result shown in a picture from an old paper


Is all 'evidence' offered by the Zetetic viewpoint from old papers and publications? or is there a modern view on this sort of interpretation as well?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Another sunrise question
« Reply #59 on: December 30, 2018, 05:17:46 PM »
Quote
And here is a beautiful Zetetic result shown in a picture from an old paper


Is all 'evidence' offered by the Zetetic viewpoint from old papers and publications? or is there a modern view on this sort of interpretation as well?
Flat earthers generally don't accept any kind of evidence that requires expensive instrumentation. It has to be either naked eye, or some experiment that can easily be reproduced.

It's difficult to find modern science that uses this kind of approach, ironically because of the need for massive accuracy. There was a discussion here recently about measuring gravitational acceleration, and it was objected that the instruments were inaccurate because of errors around one millionth of a centimetre per second.

For the same reason, Flat earthers reject any evidence from space travel, arguing it is a conspiracy. So the best approach is simple and easily verifiable experiments. The shadow one works very well.