Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #60 on: May 09, 2014, 09:35:21 PM »
You know what approximately means right?

It was presented here as an observation.

So what?

If it's an observation, then the dates listed on the page should be accurate.

Gulliver says his link is webcam evidence that the sun was seen on on the Equinox Day at that location. However, the link does not indicate seeing the sun on Equinox Day, instead stating that it sets before that.
You're welcome to be as pedantic as you want. The site said the Sun sets on the equinox and shows a photo of it on that day. So if an NP observer sees the Sun set on the equinox, then the observer sees the Sun on the equinox. That's straight forward.

Now let's agree that clouds, irregular ice surfaces, and other minutia can alter the scenario. You're still challenged to show on your model that the Sun can be seen from both poles on the same day to match the evidence, even if there's a day or two difference. Why can't you produce a illustration of the Sun's location and area of illumination of September 20-30 and demonstrate that required flexibility in your model's predictions? I just love the idea that your model requires the Sun to act as in such contorted ways as to defy all reasonable expectations. The Sun in your model as midnight UT is "above" the NP in June, drawing a line down across the NP to London, where it's dark, is closer than the Sun is to Hawaii, where it is light. Quite embarrassing for the bi-polar model. So I repeat the challenge: I challenge you to show, and then explain, the area illuminated by the Sun at 23.00 UT on March 21, 2014. People in Sydney, Australia saw the Sun to the east. Yet by your explanation the Sun was on the Equator on the western part of the FE.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5639
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2014, 11:09:33 PM »
You know what approximately means right?

It was presented here as an observation.

So what?

If it's an observation, then the dates listed on the page should be accurate.

Gulliver says his link is webcam evidence that the sun was seen on on the Equinox Day at that location. However, the link does not indicate seeing the sun on Equinox Day, instead stating that it sets before that.

Pedantic and obtusely ignoring the didactic context. A sure sign of weakness.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2014, 11:22:59 PM »
Quote from: Gulliver
You're welcome to be as pedantic as you want. The site said the Sun sets on the equinox and shows a photo of it on that day.

Incorrect. Had you bothered to click on the image you posted here from the site, it would have enlarged, showing that the image was not snapped on the equinox day.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2002/images/noaa-2002-0830-0140.jpg

Quote from: Gulliver
Now let's agree that clouds, irregular ice surfaces, and other minutia can alter the scenario. You're still challenged to show on your model that the Sun can be seen from both poles on the same day to match the evidence, even if there's a day or two difference.

The evidence which has been provided for that assertion has been a website which states that predicting the position of the sun under RET is a "guessing game," an observation of the sun from the SP by a NOAA employe, a site which states that at the NP the sun sets before the Equinox occurs, and a NP webcam picture which was taken almost a month before the day of Equinox.

I'm afraid the ball is still in your court on this.

Quote from: Gulliver
Why can't you produce a illustration of the Sun's location and area of illumination of September 20-30 and demonstrate that required flexibility in your model's predictions? I just love the idea that your model requires the Sun to act as in such contorted ways as to defy all reasonable expectations. The Sun in your model as midnight UT is "above" the NP in June, drawing a line down across the NP to London, where it's dark, is closer than the Sun is to Hawaii, where it is light. Quite embarrassing for the bi-polar model.

When the sun is over the mid Pacific, it is not light in London.

Quote from: Gulliver
So I repeat the challenge: I challenge you to show, and then explain, the area illuminated by the Sun at 23.00 UT on March 21, 2014. People in Sydney, Australia saw the Sun to the east. Yet by your explanation the Sun was on the Equator on the western part of the FE.

Who saw what, where? Were you in Australia on that date?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 11:35:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2014, 11:44:53 PM »
Quote from: Gulliver
So I repeat the challenge: I challenge you to show, and then explain, the area illuminated by the Sun at 23.00 UT on March 21, 2014. People in Sydney, Australia saw the Sun to the east. Yet by your explanation the Sun was on the Equator on the western part of the FE.

Who saw what, where? Were you in Australia on that date?
So is this some type of standard you're going to employ fairly now? Did you see Rowbotham fire the cannon in Chapter 3 of EnaG? I was being fair, and nice.
I chose the date for your convenience. I now see that you can't be fair. Okay, I modify the challenge, making it harder on you and easier for me, match this webcam right now. See: http://www.earthcam.com/world/australia/sydney/ The shadows determine the direction to the Sun. Good luck.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2014, 11:48:56 PM »
Quote from: Gulliver
Why can't you produce a illustration of the Sun's location and area of illumination of September 20-30 and demonstrate that required flexibility in your model's predictions? I just love the idea that your model requires the Sun to act as in such contorted ways as to defy all reasonable expectations. The Sun in your model as midnight UT is "above" the NP in June, drawing a line down across the NP to London, where it's dark, is closer than the Sun is to Hawaii, where it is light. Quite embarrassing for the bi-polar model.

When the sun is over the mid Pacific, it is not light in London.

And when your model shows the Sun at the top of the image of your model at midnight UT in the ND Summer, London is indeed in the dark yet closer to the Sun than Hawaii, sunlit, is. So do explain.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2014, 11:41:30 PM »

Incorrect. Had you bothered to click on the image you posted here from the site, it would have enlarged, showing that the image was not snapped on the equinox day.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2002/images/noaa-2002-0830-0140.jpg

Since you don't seem able to find evidence even when it's place on a NOAA website, I'd though I'd link it here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg

Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #66 on: May 13, 2014, 11:29:12 PM »

Incorrect. Had you bothered to click on the image you posted here from the site, it would have enlarged, showing that the image was not snapped on the equinox day.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2002/images/noaa-2002-0830-0140.jpg

Since you don't seem able to find evidence even when it's place on a NOAA website, I'd though I'd link it here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0925-051316.jpg

Your claim was that it is seen from the North Pole and South Pole for 24 hours. I don't see 24 hours in that photograph.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #67 on: May 14, 2014, 12:51:21 AM »
Gulliver says his link is webcam evidence that the sun was seen on on the Equinox Day at that location. However, the link does not indicate seeing the sun on Equinox Day, instead stating that it sets before that.
Your claim was that it is seen from the North Pole and South Pole for 24 hours. I don't see 24 hours in that photograph.
You seem to disagree with yourself. Once the two of you agree, please post your consensus of a moot point about the challenge. Remember that I withdrew the easier-for-you equinox-day challenge and substituted the harder this-week-in-Sydney challenge. Please pay attention. Thanks.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2014, 03:37:45 PM »
Rowbotham didn't know about the South Pole because it hadn't been discovered yet. Flat Earthers corrected the model in the early 20th Century. The model is used in the early 1900's book "The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Albert Smith, whereupon the FET split into two models. The Bi-Polar model was forgotten over time, but revived in recent years by myself and others.


Your very own hero, James Clarke Ross, not only knew about the South Pole, but he circumnavigated it, and even got to within some tens of kilometers from the magnetic South Pole, some 20 years before Rowbotham's book!

Thousands of navigators and geographers did what every scientist does: they made predictions that were eventually verified by explorers and other scientists. Most or all of what James Clarke Ross found, as far as maps and charts is concerned, was already known. He added a lot of cartographic information about the details of Antarctica's shoreline, but all the rest that he found was more or less what had already been predicted by scientists.

I believe he found a lot of previously unknown information about the magnetic characteristics of the Magnetic South Pole, but all the rest was not a huge surprise.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 03:39:47 PM by RealScientist »