[SteelyBob]

Actually the Wiki suggests that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. I'll try...

Firstly, bending the lines of longitude like that hasn't fixed the problems I alluded to. The 45 degree circle centred on 0N 0W, for example, now lands on the eastern tip of Somalia. At 1200 UTC on next September's equinox in that place the sun will be around 35 degrees elevation, not 45.

The 90 degree circle still doesn't cover all of South America, so your model is saying it will be dark in places when it fact it will be very much daylight.

Next, in the process of trying to correct for some problems, you've introduced more problems. According to your EA model, you are suggesting that Polaris is 6000 miles overhead the North Pole. That means that everybody on a line of longitude running south from the North Pole should view Polaris directly north, at progressively lower elevations until the equator is reached. But now you've curved the lines, so people on, for example the 0 degree meridian won't see Polaris on the same heading. That is completely at odds with what we observe, what conventional science predicts, and what your initial explanation of EA would expect.

You need to back a horse here - you seem to be flitting from map to map as it suits. You can't have one map to explain one phenomenon and another for a different one - they all have to work the same way.

[WTF_Seriously]

Actually the Wiki suggests that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

What we witness with solar noon completely makes the curved longitude map impossible.  Every point on a given longitude sees solar noon at the same time.  Solar noon occurs when the sun is at it's closest and the observer looks due south or north depending on hemiplane.  The only way for every latitude on a given longitude to see solar noon at the same time is for the line of longitude to be straight, running directly N-S.  This has nothing to do with time zones.  Solar noon doesn't happen at the same time for every location in a given time zone.  Solar noon is specific for every longitude.

In addition, Tom.  That picture  looks great for how longitudes would line up with a spotlight sunrise, but what happens on the sunset end?  The lines of longitude would need to curve the other direction in order to line up with the spotlight at sunset.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually the Wiki suggests that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. I'll try...

Firstly, bending the lines of longitude like that hasn't fixed the problems I alluded to. The 45 degree circle centred on 0N 0W, for example, now lands on the eastern tip of Somalia. At 1200 UTC on next September's equinox in that place the sun will be around 35 degrees elevation, not 45.

The 90 degree circle still doesn't cover all of South America, so your model is saying it will be dark in places when it fact it will be very much daylight.

Next, in the process of trying to correct for some problems, you've introduced more problems. According to your EA model, you are suggesting that Polaris is 6000 miles overhead the North Pole. That means that everybody on a line of longitude running south from the North Pole should view Polaris directly north, at progressively lower elevations until the equator is reached. But now you've curved the lines, so people on, for example the 0 degree meridian won't see Polaris on the same heading. That is completely at odds with what we observe, what conventional science predicts, and what your initial explanation of EA would expect.

You need to back a horse here - you seem to be flitting from map to map as it suits. You can't have one map to explain one phenomenon and another for a different one - they all have to work the same way.

Actually the discrepancies you are attempting to point out with a circle are fallacious, as you have neglected to provide any real world observations of anything at all.

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the longitude lines were curved. The North Star is still over the North Pole and traveling Eastwards or Westwards in relation to the North Star would take you in a circle. Likewise, if you travel East ot West in relation to the magnetic field lines which eminate from the North you would make a similar circle on that map, as East and West on a compass are at a right angle to North. The direction of North and the makeup of the longitude lines on the surface have nothing to do with each other.

Someone on 0,0 degrees at the equator is on a point. That point does not suggest where the other points of longitude are or where North is. The makeup of the longitude lines is determined by the time of day and time zones, are points unique to the observer's position, and has nothing to do with North.

[WTF_Seriously]

Actually the discrepancies you are attempting to point out with a circle are fallacious, as you have neglected to provide any real world observations of anything at all.

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Enter 0 longitude in Suncalc.org and then vary the lattitude.  You'll see that culmination time is the same for all latitudes.

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the latitude lines were curved. The North Star is still over the North Pole and traveling Eastwards or Westwards in relation to the North Star would take you in a circle. Likewise, if you travel East ot West in relation to the magnetic field lines which eminate from the North you would make a similar circle on that map, as East and West on a compass are at a right angle to North. The direction of North and the makeup of the latitude lines have nothing to do with each other.

My argument's just fine.


The point is not "Where's north?"  The point is that with the sun at any give location, with the exception of directly under it as you travel a curved longitude you are no longer at the closest point to the sun therefore you would not see solar noon at the same time as everyone else on your longitutde.

Someone on 0,0 degrees at the equator is on a point. That point does not suggest where the other points of latitude are or where North is. The makeup of the latitude lines is determined by the time of day and time zones, are points unique to the observer's position, and has nothing to do with North.

You seem to be confusing latitude and longitude.  Latitude has nothing to do with time of day.  Also, Longitude, along with solar noon, has nothing to do with time zones.

And you'll conveniently ignore the fact that the longitude line would have to curve the opposite direction to align with sunset.  Well done.

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

[WTF_Seriously]

Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that Suncalc.org is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that Suncalc.org is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.

As far as I can tell sites like suncalc are not a collection of observations, and isn't claimed as such. Certainly, it would take a worldwide effort of prolonged observations and there is no record of such an effort. In fact, we once emailed timeanddate on the source of their information and they claimed it was proprietary.

From my own experience, using the live dynamic phone sun locator apps have always been off.

[WTF_Seriously]

Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that Suncalc.org is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.

As far as I can tell sites like suncalc are not a collection of observations, and isn't claimed as such. Certainly, it would take a worldwide effort of observations and there is no record of such an effort. In fact, we once emailed timeanddate on the source of their information and they claimed it was proprietary.

Form my own experience, using the live dynamic phone sun locator apps have always been off.

So you don't have any actual observations to refute Suncalc.  So, in your own words, your argument is "a desperate argument from a losing position."

[SteelyBob]

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the longitude lines were curved.

Indeed it would not. You can draw the lines of longitude as wiggly as you like - it's just a convention.

It's not really clear from your map what modifications you have made, exactly, or why. It sort of looks like you've curved everything, thereby keeping places on the same line of longitude, albeit curved. On closer inspection though, that isn't the case, as places that are generally considered to be on the same line of longitude, like say London, the east coast of Spain, and the previously mentioned 0N 0W point, no longer are - the curved lines they are on are different. But neither do the east coast of Spain and London line up with the North Pole, so a traveller flying towards Polaris would be flying over different places. Maybe you could clarify what, precisely, the intent of the map is - are places supposed to retain their current lat/long position, or are you proposing that our current set of coordinates is wrong? And should places that currently align with Polaris still stay aligned?

But to be honest, there's far, far bigger issues with that map. If it's real world observations you wanted, here's one. According to timeanddate (and https://rl.se/sub-solar-point, the sun is currently directly overhead a position in the pacific around 21S 135W, somewhere near French Polynesia. Hard to pinpoint that exactly on your map, but here's a 90 degree circle centred on that rough location:



Now you might take issue with my placement of the circle - it's slightly south of what I presume to be the Tropic, which clearly can't be right, but I tried to line it up on the right part of the west coast of South America...it should also be roughly half way to Australia...there's lots of challenges.

In any case, the more important point to note is that, according to your description of EA, it should be dark everywhere outside that circle. But it's currently daytime in Australia, which is miles away on your map. Miles away - it's not even close to the circle. And look, here's a webcam from Sydney:



...taken from a still from this site - https://webcamsydney.com

How can it be daylight in Sydney if your model is correct?

And before you say...how do you know that sun placement is correct...aside from the fact that it's a well-proven model, backed up from numerous websites and daily observations by millions of people...here's a webcam from the Falklands at the same time. It cannot be daytime simultaneously in both Sydney and the Falklands if your model and map are correct:



That webcam is from: http://www.webcams.horizon.co.fk

How would you explain that?

[Tom Bishop]

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:



This is also the reason given for the southern celestial rotation as seen by the observer:

[stack]

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?

[Tom Bishop]

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

[SteelyBob]

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:



This is also the reason given for the southern celestial rotation as seen by the observer:

Again, you're fixing one problem, or trying to, and creating another. If that is the case, then the same must also hold true for the stars, which you've previously stated to be at the same altitude as the sun. But the model you've described for a viewer of the stars is completely different to that which you are now relying on for an observer of the sun. You can't have both. Again, pick a horse.

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

Well if you prefer a bipolar model, why are you showing us a monopole map with the curved longitude lines on it?

Again...another horse. Show us precisely what you think the map looks like, and how you think the sun illuminates it.

[WTF_Seriously]

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

The bi-polar model has the same issue with not agreeing with how solar noon is observed as the curved longitude model.  On the bi-polar model, the sun is not at it's closest distance to each location on a given longitude line.  Thus, solar noon would not be seen at the same time at all locations along a given longitude line the way it is observed to.

[Tom Bishop]

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

The bi-polar model has the same issue with not agreeing with how solar noon is observed as the curved longitude model.  On the bi-polar model, the sun is not at it's closest distance to each location on a given longitude line.  Thus, solar noon would not be seen at the same time at all locations along a given longitude line the way it is observed to.

Who observed this? So far you have been unable to cite a single observation and keep referring to an online calculator which also does not cite any observations.

[WTF_Seriously]

Who observed this? So far you have been unable to cite a single observation and keep referring to an online calculator which also does not cite any observations.

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, I said nothing about lying. The problem is that you have no real world data.

[WTF_Seriously]

Actually, I said nothing about lying. The problem is that you have no real world data.

Funny.  I see no real world data from you either.  Interestingly, you believe enough of the 'non real world data' that you felt it necessary to put a curved longitude model in the WIKI to attempt to address the fact that the sun rises at the same time continuously along each longitude line on the equinox.  Why would you feel compelled to do that if there wasn't any data to support that fact?

[stack]

You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

What shape(s) does sunlight take on the bi-polar model?

[AATW]

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

The thing I cannot get my head around in that model is how the sun moves.
So with the monopole model it orbits the north pole effectively, closer to the north pole in the northern summer, further away in the northern winter. I have issues with that - it means the radius of the orbit has to keep changing and therefore the speed has to change to maintain a 24 hour day/might cycle. And that has to reverse every 6 months. No mechanisms for any of this have been even proposed as far as I know.
But at least I understand the model.
With the bi-polar model then what, the sun orbits the north pole for 6 months and then switches to orbit the south pole for 6 months? That would explain the antarctic 24 hour sun I guess but it feels like you're causing a whole lot of other problems there in terms of where the sun is in any way that matches observations.