Why are we even arguing about this?
Let's look at the steps in this debate to see how Tom seeks to derail things:
* We find a problem that FET cannot explain. Either real world sunrises and sunsets match RET or they don't.
* If they match RET then parts of the FE world will experience wild temperature variations compared to what one would expect.
* If they DON'T match RET - then everyone would know it because software like SOFA and TimeAndDate and HUNDREDS of other sunrise/sunset calculators would all be incorrect...and quite clearly they are not.
This is a slam-dunk...the world is round.
So what can Tom do? Initially he ignored it - but when I posted my list of debate topics where the FE'ers had abandoned them - Tom clearly saw he needed to "up his game" and following that discussion - he's started to "connect" on some of these threads.
So he comes to this thread and looks for any way he can to derail the argument. The only place he sees an opportunity is to claim that "real world" sunrise and sunset times MIGHT not match RET.
He has ZERO proof of this - none, zip, nada.
This is insanely unlikely. Mankind has had the means to calculate these times since the ancient Greeks...and ALL of those methods are RET based.
Tom is therefore claiming that of the bazillions of times people have used sunrise/sunset calculators - nobody ever noticed that they are WILDLY incorrect. For the argument I propose to be incorrect, the "real world" sunrise/sunset times would have to be many, MANY hours wrong.
It would be like 3am - and the sun would come up...people would be amazed...they'd check any of a dozen sunrise/sunset calculators and they'd say "6am" (or whatever).
How would nobody be aware of this insane and disastrous error over the course of the last 3,000 years or so?
But - does Tom defend this?
No - he goes off on a tangent demanding ridiculous proof for an impossible assertion. I provide that proof (even though it's not needed) and he focusses on smaller and smaller nits.
These are the actions of a very desperate man folks.
He's holding on to his precious flat earth theory by a finger...and it's slipping away.
We're past the point where we'd say "SUCH-AND-SUCH GOES WRONG" and he comes up with some elaborate theory that explains why - and instead he falls back on the ever-expanding crazy degrees of doubt.
The deal here is that sunrise and sunset times that people see out there in the real world DO agree with RET math...of this there is no realistic doubt - only Tom-induced-craziness-doubt.
So - focus on the thing here:
Can FET explain why the speed of the sun across the distorted maps of the FE world either doesn't change (resulting in FE sunrise/sunset times disagreeing with VERY well established algorithms like SOFA) - or can FET explain why we don't see crazy temperature inconsistencies - or can FET explain how nobody ever noticed the sun rising several hours from when it should according to the math that's been used to calculate them for 3,000 years or more?
That's the issue here - it really doesn't matter whether some specific website uses some specific piece of software. That's NOT the realms of doubt here.
We have had many threads about this. I ask for the observations of the sun that Round Earth Theory relies upon for its sun models and no reports can be found. The only observational evidence was you claiming to have proved it when you were 13 years old. Why should we believe that there are hidden mountains of professional observations?
Round Earth Theory does not rest upon your 13 year old observations, I am afraid. If you cannot provide the observations which back up a Round Earth mathematical model, then we cannot accept those sources as impeachable evidence.
If you cannot see the importance of having observational evidence to back up an algorithm, then we are done talking here. We have been asking the same question for years.
You have not shown that timeanddate.com or SOFA are accurate, or that they rely strictly on a Round Earth geometric model of the solar system for the predictions. You have a steep uphill climb for your positive claims.
Yeah - in a world where FET was REMOTELY credible (Trust me, it's not) - then scientists would be working very hard to collect data to prove one model or the other.
The truth is that you guys are seen as complete idiots by 99.999% of the world - and nobody would remotely consider collecting data to "prove that the world is round" - we already have photos from the moon, long distance air flight...all of the DOZENS of other things that have proven conclusively that the Earth is round.
If you want people out there with theodalites and stop watches - then you're going to have to do that yourself.
The ACTUAL proof works like this:
1) We assume the null hypothesis: "The World is Round".
2) We use this fact to create software like SOFA and it's ilk.
3) We test it against the real world to make sure it works.
4) It does work.
5) We call it done.
If at step (4) we found even the SLIGHTEST inconsistency - then we have to go back and look at our initial hypothesis.
Here is an actual example of that happening:
1) Sir Isaac Newton came up with the laws of motion and the law of gravitation.
2) It was used to write equations describing the path of the planets across the skies.
3) It was checked against telescopic observations to see if they matched.
4) They did match...so scientists and engineers began to rely on Newtons' laws.
BUT THEN:
5) Horror of horrors! Careful observation of the motion of the planet mercury showed that it's orbit "precessed" in ways that Newton's laws could not explain.
6) There was much concern that Newton may have gotten things very slightly wrong - or that astronomers had somehow missed another planet or something.
7) Albert Einstein discovers relativity.
New equations of motion are made to improve on Newton's theories.
9) These new equations match not only the motion of all of the other planets - but also show why the Sun's gravity causes subtle bending of space-time which PERFECTLY explains the motion of Mercury.
10) Scientists now use Newton's work only as approximations - and use Einstein's work where it matters.
But nobody is making lots of observations to "prove" Newton or Einstein's results. That was done a century ago. Once a scientific fact is well established, we can stop worrying about it unless some weird anomaly appears.
So IF at ANY TIME someone finds that the sun rises an hour too soon - then you can trust me that there will be a bazillion scientists with theodalites and stop-watches collecting data.
But the RE model works PERFECTLY - it explains everything we see around us - there is not one single thing that even hints at it being incorrect - so why the heck would anyone waste time and money measuring sunrises and sunsets?
The fact is that if you want FET to be accepted widely, YOU are the ones who have to collect the data.
Remember - you're not trying to convince your believers - if you want your theory to be more widely accepted, YOU are the ones who have to collect data and find some "smoking gun" flaw in RET's predictions.
Not only can you not do that (evidently) - you can't even come up with a coherent explanation for the tides or sunsets or compasses or airline flight times or how the moon looks in the southern hemisphere or how lunar eclipses work or the phases of the moon or how the stars rotate in the southern hemisphere or what powers the sun or why pinhole cameras don't exhibit your "alternate perspective".
You act as though it is the job of RE'ers to prove you wrong - but in truth, the onus is on you to find even one tiny scrap of evidence that RET is wrong.