#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3875
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2019, 12:21:56 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.
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.

#### robinofloxley

• 79
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #21 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.

#### somerled

• 134
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2019, 11:59:50 AM »
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 .

#### robinofloxley

• 79
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #23 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.

#### dirtysnowball

##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2019, 01:13:48 PM »
Quote
Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .

I'm sure you treat the flat Earth page of Wikipedia with the same sentiment then. Or do you just cherry pick the evidence from various websites to suit your point of view?

The line of attack for most if not all FE believers tends to be much the same and refraction (or abracadabra as you call it) is normally mentioned in there somewhere. Nothing magical about refraction though. Just straight forward physics. How you chhose to interpret the laws of physics of course is up to you.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 01:15:33 PM by dirtysnowball »

#### rpt

• 22
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2019, 03:28:23 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 .

So you agree with the heliocentric model.

you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .

Hmmm...

#### somerled

• 134
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2019, 10:52:54 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.

I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish .

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required

#### stack

• 1255
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2019, 11:31:26 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.

I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish .

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required

Can you perhaps be more clear exactly what you are arguing here? Because it seems like we are all saying the same thing. From your equinox definition link:

the time when the sun crosses the plane of the earth's equator, making night and day of approximately equal length all over the earth and occurring about March 21 (vernal equinox or spring equinox) and September 22 (autumnal equinox).

Seems like a reasonable definition.

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

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3875
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2019, 01:05:26 AM »
I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish .

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required
Please cite where any of those scientific definitions of equinox predict exactly equal day and night.
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.

#### dirtysnowball

##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2019, 05:55:13 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.

#### robinofloxley

• 79
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #30 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.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2532
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2019, 12:22:17 PM »
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.
Yes, the definition of what an equinox is a diversion. I should really have reported the post as off topic but the moment has gone now.
This is why triangulation doesn't work on a FE, and why by extension the earth cannot be flat:

The angle of Polaris is the roughly the same as your latitude. Take an observation at 80 degrees north latitude and it'll be at 80 degrees. Take an observation at 60 degrees north and it'll be at 60 degrees and so on. So you can take two observations and triangulate, assuming a flat earth, to find the height of Polaris. The issue is when you add a 3rd point.
The diagram shows why this is an issue. The 3 lines don't meet at a single point.

This is effectively what the metabunk experiment did, taking observations of the sun by people all round the world. With a globe model these observations all point in a common direction which is what you'd expect with a distant sun. Try and plot those observation on a flat earth and they point all over the place. Now, you could say that the flat earth map isn't known. And in the above you could move the 3 points to different distances and make them converge at a common point but the more points you add the more challenging that becomes to the point you are surely forced to conclude that the model of a flat earth is incorrect.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2532
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2019, 05:47:21 PM »
I’d be interested to see a diagram of how the light travels from Polaris to earth at different latitudes but if EA is going to be used as an explanation for my diagram above then it renders triangulation useless. You would have to take that into account some way if the apparent position of an object is not it’s true position
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### dirtysnowball

##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2019, 07:08:20 PM »
Just re-tracing over the posts in this discussion and came across this from somerled…

Quote
All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees

Where are you getting the 66.6 degrees from?

#### robinofloxley

• 79
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #34 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.

#### dirtysnowball

##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2019, 04:13:20 PM »
Somerled, as a (I assume) flat Earther, do you then accept or not accept the distances for the Moon that timeanddate.com quotes?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html

These distances are somewhat different to that which FET claims, by method of triangulation or whatever.  The same applies to the Sun. The distances quoted are rather different to those that FET claims.  To quote from FE Wiki...

Quote
“ Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h (distance to Sun) is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2019, 04:18:53 PM by dirtysnowball »

#### somerled

• 134
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2019, 10:22:41 AM »
Somerled, as a (I assume) flat Earther, do you then accept or not accept the distances for the Moon that timeanddate.com quotes?

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html

These distances are somewhat different to that which FET claims, by method of triangulation or whatever.  The same applies to the Sun. The distances quoted are rather different to those that FET claims.  To quote from FE Wiki...

Quote
“ Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h (distance to Sun) is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.

I accept timeanddate values for sunrise/sunset times where these are verifiable by anyone through direct observation . The moon distances are dependent on the unverified assumption that earth is a sphere , and the supposed radar measure can only be hearsay -since I am unable to verify this personally .

I would like to point out the experiment shown on metabunk contains no error limits - can we really measure a short shadow to such accuracy along with the timing to the split second . The conclusion in that video is that the light rays are parallel onto a perfect sphere . Could point out several mistakes but then we are farther off topic .

#### dirtysnowball

##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2019, 12:20:38 PM »
Quote
I am unable to verify this personally .

If you are going to limit your acceptance of facts and figures to only those you can verify personally then you are going to run into all sorts of problems.

I can't personally verify for certain the distance to the Moon or the Sun but I know that many can and so I respect those quoted values.

If FE says the Sun is only 3000 miles away I bet you can't verify that personally either but you accept it because it happens to fall in line with a belief system that you subscribe to.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2019, 12:23:28 PM by dirtysnowball »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6551
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2019, 12:25:24 PM »
Quote
I am unable to verify this personally .

If you are going to limit your acceptance of facts and figures to only those you can verify personally then you are going to run into all sorts of problems.

I can't personally verify for certain the distance to the Moon or the Sun but I know that many can and so I respect those quoted values.

If FE says the Sun is only 3000 miles away I bet you can't verify that personally either but you accept it because it happens to fall in line with a belief system that you subscribe to.

If you don't know all of the details on how those numbers were derived, why would you believe it?

#### robinofloxley

• 79
##### Re: When rockets launch....
« Reply #39 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.