Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2017, 07:20:27 PM »
Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there.   The code contains all of the equations they use.   I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace.   I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.

The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.

So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.

But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time.   It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury.   When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.

It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.

Tom, these equations are all being done rapidly by these calculators and simulators when you enter in your location and the date. This is the process the computer goes through. This is part of why I at least find it amusing when you claim things like "It's been adjusted to match observations" since you don't seem to understand the full extent of what is actually going on behind the scenes. It's not as simple as changing a number here or there, these programs have an incredible amount of interwoven data.

Yep - I agree.  I just grabbed a copy.   The SOFA software is about 62,000 lines of computer code spread over 230 files.  If you printed it all out, it would be about as thick as a King James' Bible.

But the idea that it might be using something other than the underlying equations of mainstream astronomy is ridiculous.  It's written by the IAU - *THE* world wide authority on matters astronomical.  SOFA will for sure be using RE and heliocentric models of the solar system.

To give you an idea - I just picked a file at random - which happens to calculate how starlight is deflected by the gravitational field of the sun.  Stripping that down to the bare essentials you get:

void iauLdsun(double p[3], double e[3], double em, double p1[3])
{
   double em2, dlim;
/* Deflection limiter (smaller for distant observers). */
   em2 = em*em;
   if ( em2 < 1.0 ) em2 = 1.0;
   dlim = 1e-6 / (em2 > 1.0 ? em2 : 1.0);
/* Apply the deflection. */
   iauLd(1.0, p, p, e, em, dlim, p1);
}

...and figuring out what THAT does is a job for the professionals.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2017, 07:21:12 PM »
Before you bait me into discussing SOFA, which may be off topic to the method used for timeanddate.com, please show where on the timeanddate.com website it is stated that they are using SOFA.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2017, 07:38:29 PM »
Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there.   The code contains all of the equations they use.   I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace.   I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.

The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.

So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.

But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time.   It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury.   When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.

It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.

Tom, these equations are all being done rapidly by these calculators and simulators when you enter in your location and the date. This is the process the computer goes through. This is part of why I at least find it amusing when you claim things like "It's been adjusted to match observations" since you don't seem to understand the full extent of what is actually going on behind the scenes. It's not as simple as changing a number here or there, these programs have an incredible amount of interwoven data.

We don't know WHAT method that website is using for its calculations. There is no transparency. There have been hundreds of attempted equations and methodologies for predicting astronomy.

Why should we assume that it is using a geometric model rather than a pattern based model? There is NO information on that website telling us what method is in use.

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2017, 08:08:34 PM »
Well, you can go and download the SOFA software - it's right there.   The code contains all of the equations they use.   I'm kinda sceptical that you'd be able to work through them all in detail - but there is nothing being hidden away or covered up anyplace.   I've used SOFA in some flight simulation products - and it does reproduce realistic sunrise/sunset times, moon positions and phases...everything you see out there in the real world.

The IAU would not get away with publishing stuff that doesn't work - and there are a ton of astronomical papers that cite their work.

So I guess you either have to take someone's word for it - or start diving into the software.

But what SOFA does isn't something as simple as plugging the time of day and your latitude/longitude into a few lines of math to get the sunrise time.   It computes the orbits of all of the planets, moons, etc - it even 'fixes' the errors made by Isaac Newton in the orbit of Mercury.   When it calculates sunrises and sunsets - it's even making the teeny-tiny adjustments for refraction.

It's an extremely comprehensive piece of software...but it's not simple!
This is honestly the root of the problem we appear to be having. Tom seems to be thinking there should be this nice, simple little string behind these calculators since it's so easy to use from an end user standpoint. When in reality that's just good programming at work, and everything going on 'behind the scenes' is far more complicated because it's not representing a simple system.

Tom, these equations are all being done rapidly by these calculators and simulators when you enter in your location and the date. This is the process the computer goes through. This is part of why I at least find it amusing when you claim things like "It's been adjusted to match observations" since you don't seem to understand the full extent of what is actually going on behind the scenes. It's not as simple as changing a number here or there, these programs have an incredible amount of interwoven data.

We don't know WHAT method that website is using for its calculations. There is no transparency. There have been hundreds of attempted equations and methodologies for predicting astronomy.

Why should we assume that it is using a geometric model rather than a pattern based model? There is NO information on that website telling us what method is in use.
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.

Now I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2017, 08:26:07 PM »
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.

Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?

Quote
Now I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*

Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2017, 08:50:28 PM »
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.

Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?

Quote
Now I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*

Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.

Because I couldn't remember where it came from offhand. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg114944#msg114944 <-- there is the relevant post in the earlier thread.

Oh right, I should probably link his rebuttal to your only refutation here as well considering how weak yours was to begin with. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg115584#msg115584

As for SOFA, 3DGeeks claim followed from him saying his research showed that the api provided by timeanddate here is the same as that provided by SOFA. I mean, I suppose you could argue timeanddate don't use the api they themselves provide, but that would require actual evidence either in the nature of showing a discrepancy, or something else.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2017, 09:21:30 PM »
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.

Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?

Quote
Now I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*

Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.

Because I couldn't remember where it came from offhand. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg114944#msg114944 <-- there is the relevant post in the earlier thread.

Oh right, I should probably link his rebuttal to your only refutation here as well considering how weak yours was to begin with. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg115584#msg115584

As for SOFA, 3DGeeks claim followed from him saying his research showed that the api provided by timeanddate here is the same as that provided by SOFA. I mean, I suppose you could argue timeanddate don't use the api they themselves provide, but that would require actual evidence either in the nature of showing a discrepancy, or something else.

I can only assume that you are feigning ignorance now because what you linked does not provide a source for where or what timeanddate.com is getting their data from, only a claim that the results will be similar the values given in The Astronomical Almanac.

I don't see the word SOFA anywhere on the api page you provided for timeanddate.com.

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2017, 09:29:08 PM »
Which one?! You claim this, yet you've been provided proof before of what is being used by that site. Just earlier this year in fact. You were shown where it draws it's information from, and you vanished from the thread.

Why not just tell us if you think you know where the information comes from?

Quote
Now I've shown you the equations that are supposed to be used to predict sunrise/set. Use them. If they don't match up, that shows timeanddate isn't using them anymore. Or take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else. You've been shown and given all of the tools to do that. I might try and find someone to help me with it at this rate, since I can't tell if you can't or won't do it. Can't promise any luck, but *shrug*

Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used? Where does it say that its using the other equation you linked? You are not providing any information on source material, just random equations which timeanddate.com does not even claim to use.

Because I couldn't remember where it came from offhand. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg114944#msg114944 <-- there is the relevant post in the earlier thread.

Oh right, I should probably link his rebuttal to your only refutation here as well considering how weak yours was to begin with. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.msg115584#msg115584

As for SOFA, 3DGeeks claim followed from him saying his research showed that the api provided by timeanddate here is the same as that provided by SOFA. I mean, I suppose you could argue timeanddate don't use the api they themselves provide, but that would require actual evidence either in the nature of showing a discrepancy, or something else.

I can only assume that you are feigning ignorance now because what you linked does not provide a source for where or what timeanddate.com is getting their data from, only a claim that the results will be similar the values given in The Astronomical Almanac.

I don't see the word SOFA anywhere on the api page you provided for timeanddate.com.
The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.

Did I say it should be there? I said 3DGeek said his research showed the api is the same as the one given out by SOFA. Ask him how hie figured that out, although I would presume Google had a hand.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2017, 09:51:44 PM »
The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.

Why are you lying and trying to claim that it is known where timeanddate.com got its data then?

IF the timeanddate.com data is similar to the Astronomical Almanac data (no examples were given) and IF timeanddate.com is accurate for what is seen in reality (again, no one has found any observations to show that this is the case) then it just moves your burden of proof to show that the Astronomical Almanac data is derived from a geometric equation rather than a pattern based equation.

Quote
Did I say it should be there? I said 3DGeek said his research showed the api is the same as the one given out by SOFA. Ask him how hie figured that out, although I would presume Google had a hand.

Why are you arguing for something which you do not know the answer for? If you are arguing in favor of SOFA then I expect you to have answers.



Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2017, 10:46:55 PM »
The sources for the Almanac are then given, by the Almanac. You seem to be pretending that it's required for timeanddate to specifically give it's equation, instead of being able to show it's accurate according to other proven methods and equations, so you can be assured of it's accuracy based on those. In the real world that is not the case, a source referencing a trusted source backing up it's data means the presented data is trustworthy, at least to most normal people I know. Note, this is specifically about *data* not conclusions about said data, before you go getting ideas. Since timeanddate and the Almanac are both strictly about data, that's being shown.

Why are you lying and trying to claim that it is known where timeanddate.com got its data then?

IF the timeanddate.com data is similar to the Astronomical Almanac data (no examples were given) and IF timeanddate.com is accurate for what is seen in reality (again, no one has found any observations to show that this is the case) then it just moves your burden of proof to show that the Astronomical Almanac data is derived from a geometric equation rather than a pattern based equation.

Quote
Did I say it should be there? I said 3DGeek said his research showed the api is the same as the one given out by SOFA. Ask him how hie figured that out, although I would presume Google had a hand.

Why are you arguing for something which you do not know the answer for? If you are arguing in favor of SOFA then I expect you to have answers.
I've told you my personal observations match timeanddate.com. Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.

I never argued it. You asked "Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used?" I told you that was an assertion by 3DGeek that he found their api was the same as the one SOFA gives out. No more, no less. You're the one who apparently took me telling you it three times to figure out what I was saying, when 3DGeek said it clearly in the very first post he made mentioning it that his research had shown him this information. Do you actually read and try and comprehend what is being said? Or just look for the first part you can attempt to pick apart, however bad you are at doing that?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2017, 12:16:07 AM »
I've told you my personal observations match timeanddate.com. Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.

We are constantly told that there are mountains of data to rely on. You are referencing a thread where I spent many pages posting the same request for the "proven" Round Earth claims about the sun over and over. I believe it was 3D who eventually made a claim along the lines of that he proved something about the sun at the equator himself when he was 13 years old. His quote:

So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.

Sure - I have an observation.   I spent nearly two years in Kenya (Nairobi, to be exact) as a young teenager.  Nairobi is just 88 miles from the equator.   In spring and fall, the sun rose in the East and set in the West and crossed so nearly vertically overhead that shadows disappeared from tall buildings.  I vividly recall one time when my mother and I walked to a local swimming pool in the noon-day heat (yeah - "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun) - it was very noticeable that you could find no shade from tall buildings on either side of the road.  She took the trouble to explain why this is, despite the axial tilt of the round earth.   In summer and winter, the earth's axial tilt causes the sun to track to the north or south by around 23 degrees from the vertical...just as you'd expect at the equator of a round earth.

This was the only piece of observational evidence presented in the thread, no one being able to present any of the observational evidence which we were told that RET is based upon. For quite a while I kept asking for the professional observations which were claimed to exist and none could be found. 3D had to resort to the old "I proved it myself when I was 13 years old" in face of embarrassment, and now you reference 3D's claim here as some kind of shining beacon of achievement.

This is an example of why the arguments presented by your particular generation of REers are so terrible. We have seen better effort.

Quote
I never argued it. You asked "Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used?" I told you that was an assertion by 3DGeek that he found their api was the same as the one SOFA gives out. No more, no less. You're the one who apparently took me telling you it three times to figure out what I was saying, when 3DGeek said it clearly in the very first post he made mentioning it that his research had shown him this information. Do you actually read and try and comprehend what is being said? Or just look for the first part you can attempt to pick apart, however bad you are at doing that?

You challenged me to "take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else." If you are challenging this then I expect that you have some kind of knowledge that the timeanddate.com data uses or relies on SOFA. If you really had no idea whether it was related or not then you should have just remained quiet.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2017, 12:18:35 AM »
It's simple to observe and test yourself the data given on timeanddate.com, and if it didn't match reality I find it extremely difficult to believe it has went unnoticed by people all across the Earth.  The argument that it doesn't match reality sounds pretty ridiculous.

However.... all Tom has been saying aside from that is that their site never mentions that they use SOFA libraries under the hood.  It's true, there is no mention of it, therefore that statement is totally valid.  We really don't know what they use.... any argument on either side is speculation, so why continue to argue that, it's not going anywhere for FE or RE.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 12:21:56 AM by Psychotropic »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2017, 12:54:12 AM »
Tom, a couple things. I personally don't care about sunrise and setting times. We don't need to "prove" them at all. You can find out the times of any day you like and they are accurate. Observation or calculation doesn't matter. They work for a round Earth. We have a map. I've seen you pull this stunt in numerous threads. You derail the conversation by demanding proof you would NEVER be able to provide from your "observations." (or the observations of any FEer) The thread gets mired down in minor details without ever really dealing with the topic at hand.

So, I have one very simple question - is the flat Earth round? (like a pie)
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2017, 02:50:03 AM »
I've told you my personal observations match timeanddate.com. Multiple others in the linked threat have told you that. 3DGeek has told you that. A number of others in the thread the last time the website came up confirmed it as well. The linked thread showed what the Almanac was based upon, you even objected yourself to the fact it was using computer equations even though it notes it also used observations to confirm it's equations. YOU are the one who keeps attempting to shift burden of proof to some document you claim must exist showing observations from every location on the globe for the equations, when the accuracy of it's predictions has been confirmed in numerous locations by multiple people upon these very fora. Since you can't believe any of us, go out and test it yourself. It's not difficult. Go. I'll wait while you gather observations for a few days. Feel free to spin up the equation and see how close timeanddate comes while you're at it.

We are constantly told that there are mountains of data to rely on. You are referencing a thread where I spent many pages posting the same request for the "proven" Round Earth claims about the sun over and over. I believe it was 3D who eventually made a claim along the lines of that he proved something about the sun at the equator himself when he was 13 years old. His quote:

So I see that after numerous pages of me posting the same request for data that you still have no observations to present for yor claim of where the sun rises or sets on the equinox equator. I guess we are done here.

Sure - I have an observation.   I spent nearly two years in Kenya (Nairobi, to be exact) as a young teenager.  Nairobi is just 88 miles from the equator.   In spring and fall, the sun rose in the East and set in the West and crossed so nearly vertically overhead that shadows disappeared from tall buildings.  I vividly recall one time when my mother and I walked to a local swimming pool in the noon-day heat (yeah - "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun) - it was very noticeable that you could find no shade from tall buildings on either side of the road.  She took the trouble to explain why this is, despite the axial tilt of the round earth.   In summer and winter, the earth's axial tilt causes the sun to track to the north or south by around 23 degrees from the vertical...just as you'd expect at the equator of a round earth.

This was the only piece of observational evidence presented in the thread, no one being able to present any of the observational evidence which we were told that RET is based upon. For quite a while I kept asking for the professional observations which were claimed to exist and none could be found. 3D had to resort to the old "I proved it myself when I was 13 years old" in face of embarrassment, and now you reference 3D's claim here as some kind of shining beacon of achievement.

This is an example of why the arguments presented by your particular generation of REers are so terrible. We have seen better effort.

Quote
I never argued it. You asked "Where does the timeanddate.com website say that SOFA is being used?" I told you that was an assertion by 3DGeek that he found their api was the same as the one SOFA gives out. No more, no less. You're the one who apparently took me telling you it three times to figure out what I was saying, when 3DGeek said it clearly in the very first post he made mentioning it that his research had shown him this information. Do you actually read and try and comprehend what is being said? Or just look for the first part you can attempt to pick apart, however bad you are at doing that?

You challenged me to "take apart the SOFA code and show us how that's based on something else." If you are challenging this then I expect that you have some kind of knowledge that the timeanddate.com data uses or relies on SOFA. If you really had no idea whether it was related or not then you should have just remained quiet.
This is why I wonder if you actually read what's written sometimes Tom. There were a number of people in that thread who mentioned they had observed timeanddate being accurate, and not the one you just linked to. The one I just linked to in my post. The one that talked about the Almanac. Multiple people in that thread said they had confirmed it for their locations. Go look for the Almanac if you need that information that badly. I have never claimed 'mountains of evidence' and I've even told you exactly that in another thread. You're the one who can't be bothered to take the observations of others it appears. You're the one who apparently can't be bothered to go out and look yourself. I've also offered forth the equation that the website would be based on. Does it match? If it doesn't I'd be more than happy to go digging deeper. But when your only response to these objects amounts to 'but are you suuuurrrreeeee' I'm not all that interested in doing more work when you don't seem interested in putting forth any effort from your end to meet me halfway. I've given you the tools to check. If you can't make use of them, say so and I'll look. But simply dodging the question isn't going to get you anywhere on this point.

I suggested that because I trust 3DGeek to be honest. He says he's found that the SOFA api is the same as the one offered by timeanddate and it's even free! That makes it the same thing as the api from timeanddate, ergo suitable for the same tests to confirm timeanddate. You are the one who requires more than just 3DGeeks word on this subject, not me. If you want more precise information on how he knows it's related/the same thing, you'll need to get it from him.

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2017, 07:47:11 AM »
Take this as you will.


Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2017, 01:45:09 PM »
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.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2017, 02:34:13 PM »
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 observations as a 13 year old child, 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.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 08:41:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2017, 03:08:41 PM »
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.

We have multiple people in multiple threads confirming they have observed timeanddate.com to accurately predict their local sunrise/set times. Fact. Stop it with this red herring of 3DGeeks statement.

We have presented evidence from the Almanac (that timeanddate states to agree with) that it's equations are confirmed with many years of observational data. You refuse to accept it.

At this point all I can figure is that you think everyone is lying to you, which is why I suggest yet again to take your own observations. Since you don't appear interested in trusting anyone else.

You appear to be looking for a catalogue of a bunch of observations taken to confirm these equations. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but assuming such a thing exists, it's unlikely to be in a digital format. The records would have been taken and kept by the IAU and predecessor associations. Assuming such data is even on the list to be digitized, it's likely a very low priority to do so for their own records, much less for public records.

We've both presented you tools to show it's not working with known equations, and those equations themselves show that they are based upon the heliocentric globe model. This you can't pretend, because FE doesn't even have a map for them to be using, much less a working model of the objects in the sky. In the distance thread it was inadmissible for the GPS if it was based on RE coordinates, but suddenly you don't care when the same is used here? Bollocks my good sir. Bollocks.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2017, 03:14:13 PM »
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.
8) 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.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2017, 03:17:05 PM »
We have multiple people in multiple threads confirming they have observed timeanddate.com to accurately predict their local sunrise/set times. Fact. Stop it with this red herring of 3DGeeks statement.

The only other observational reports that were presented were some random RE posters who chimed in stating "werks for me!!" in the heat of conversation. It is quite sad that you see this as evidence.

Quote
We have presented evidence from the Almanac (that timeanddate states to agree with) that it's equations are confirmed with many years of observational data. You refuse to accept it.

What evidence?

Quote
You appear to be looking for a catalogue of a bunch of observations taken to confirm these equations. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but assuming such a thing exists, it's unlikely to be in a digital format. The records would have been taken and kept by the IAU and predecessor associations. Assuming such data is even on the list to be digitized, it's likely a very low priority to do so for their own records, much less for public records.

How can you assume that these catalogs exist if we can't find any trace or reference to them?

Quote
We've both presented you tools to show it's not working with known equations, and those equations themselves show that they are based upon the heliocentric globe model.


It has not been shown that the equations are based on a Heliocentric globe model, or that they are accurate. Stop lying.

Quote
This you can't pretend, because FE doesn't even have a map for them to be using, much less a working model of the objects in the sky. In the distance thread it was inadmissible for the GPS if it was based on RE coordinates, but suddenly you don't care when the same is used here? Bollocks my good sir. Bollocks.

GPS or Round Earth coordinates have not been discussed here.