*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2017, 03:20:30 PM »
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.

Why are you trying to divert this discussion?

If you can't present the evidence showing that those equations are unimpeachable then they are not unimpeachable. Your argument that we should just accept them without question is terrible.

We have simply requested the data behind the work so that we can see it have been verified as accurate and all you can seem to do is throw a fit. Quite telling.

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 #41 on: September 15, 2017, 03:32:19 PM »
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.

Why are you trying to divert this discussion?

If you can't present the evidence showing that those equations are unimpeachable then they are not unimpeachable. Your argument that we should just accept them without question is terrible.

We have simply requested the data behind the work so that we can see it have been verified as accurate and all you can seem to do is throw a fit. Quite telling.

The evidence is in the SOFA source code - which you can freely download from the link provided.   If you read through the 60,000 lines of software code, you will, with 100% certainty find a buttload of equations that relate to the round earth and heliocentric model of the universe.   That's your evidence, go ahead and read it.   See you in a couple of years.

We know SOFA is reliable because it's been TESTED...it's used by the International Astronomical Union - the professional and academic body that oversees all astronomy around the globe.   These are the guys who decided that Pluto should not be called "A planet" - the people who determine the acceptable names for newly found stars and planets.   Every single astronomer in the world relies on them.   If SOFA was inconsistent with RET then the world would be ablaze with the news.  Instead, it's been considered the gold standard for ephemeris calculations for over 20 years.

The evidence is that people can use it reliably for pointing telescopes at stars and planets all over the world and at any time of the night...it works for radio telescopes...it's used all over the place.

If you're expecting to find a giant table of sunrise and sunset times, measured with a stopwatch and compared against the times predicted by SOFA - then you're not going to be in luck.  That's not how the world works.

Instead, look at a photograph of a distant galaxy taken by some ungodly huge telescope on top of a mountain in South America - and note that the telescope is pointing in the right direction to take that photo because it uses SOFA to figure that out.

YOU CAN go look at the SOFA software...and if you think you have the intellectual capability to understand the equations then I STRONGLY urge you to do so.   But it ain't simple.  This is a very comprehensive thing.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2017, 03:37:44 PM »
The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.

Tom, my original assertion was that the southern "hemiplane" should be much colder due to the fact that the sun has a larger area to heat. A few simple questions.
1) What is the overall shape of the flat Earth? The pics from space seem to indicate round. Would you agree with that?
2) Do you agree that the sun travels in a circular, regular orbit?
3) Do you agree that some people live in the southern "hemiplane"?

Yes, these are simple. Yes, they may have been asked before, but I want to know what you're current understanding is before proceeding. Trying to build a foundation of agreed upon points.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

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 #43 on: September 15, 2017, 03:50:46 PM »
The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.

Tom, my original assertion was that the southern "hemiplane" should be much colder due to the fact that the sun has a larger area to heat. A few simple questions.
1) What is the overall shape of the flat Earth? The pics from space seem to indicate round. Would you agree with that?
2) Do you agree that the sun travels in a circular, regular orbit?
3) Do you agree that some people live in the southern "hemiplane"?

Yes, these are simple. Yes, they may have been asked before, but I want to know what you're current understanding is before proceeding. Trying to build a foundation of agreed upon points.
I don't think Tom will agree with (1) because he doesn't know what a map of FE looks like.   I don't think he'll agree with (2) because the sun has to do some kind of weird spiralling loop in order to reproduce the seasons and changing day lengths throughout the year.
Hey Tom:  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 #44 on: September 15, 2017, 03:54:21 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.

You don't actually read what's written at all do you? Sorry guys, when Tom can't be bothered to parse and comprehend what's written, or look at the information in links to other locations ON THIS VERY FORUM I don't see much point in continuing this for me. Good luck

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2017, 04:00:28 PM »
The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.

Tom, my original assertion was that the southern "hemiplane" should be much colder due to the fact that the sun has a larger area to heat. A few simple questions.
1) What is the overall shape of the flat Earth? The pics from space seem to indicate round. Would you agree with that?
2) Do you agree that the sun travels in a circular, regular orbit?
3) Do you agree that some people live in the southern "hemiplane"?

Yes, these are simple. Yes, they may have been asked before, but I want to know what you're current understanding is before proceeding. Trying to build a foundation of agreed upon points.
I don't think Tom will agree with (1) because he doesn't know what a map of FE looks like.   I don't think he'll agree with (2) because the sun has to do some kind of weird spiralling loop in order to reproduce the seasons and changing day lengths throughout the year.

That's fine if those are his answers. It is a place to start. Gotta have a starting point of things he will accept and work from there.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2017, 08:23:58 PM »
The evidence is in the SOFA source code - which you can freely download from the link provided.   If you read through the 60,000 lines of software code, you will, with 100% certainty find a buttload of equations that relate to the round earth and heliocentric model of the universe.   That's your evidence, go ahead and read it.   See you in a couple of years.

We know SOFA is reliable because it's been TESTED...it's used by the International Astronomical Union - the professional and academic body that oversees all astronomy around the globe.   These are the guys who decided that Pluto should not be called "A planet" - the people who determine the acceptable names for newly found stars and planets.   Every single astronomer in the world relies on them.   If SOFA was inconsistent with RET then the world would be ablaze with the news.  Instead, it's been considered the gold standard for ephemeris calculations for over 20 years.

The evidence is that people can use it reliably for pointing telescopes at stars and planets all over the world and at any time of the night...it works for radio telescopes...it's used all over the place.

If you're expecting to find a giant table of sunrise and sunset times, measured with a stopwatch and compared against the times predicted by SOFA - then you're not going to be in luck.  That's not how the world works.

Instead, look at a photograph of a distant galaxy taken by some ungodly huge telescope on top of a mountain in South America - and note that the telescope is pointing in the right direction to take that photo because it uses SOFA to figure that out.

YOU CAN go look at the SOFA software...and if you think you have the intellectual capability to understand the equations then I STRONGLY urge you to do so.   But it ain't simple.  This is a very comprehensive thing.

Before we get into the intricacies of the SOFA source code to see whether the collection of equations are geometric or pattern based; can you provide data showing that SOFA has made accurate predictions?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2017, 08:36:47 PM »
Yes, with a few minutes of research to find one example of an article that specifically cites the astronomical constants used by the IAU programmed into SOFA: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/432/4/3431/1008592/Relativistic-effects-and-dark-matter-in-the-Solar

and also:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-012-0086-6

but really just all of these:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2874842261205802644&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en

//

But also, for those watching, note that Tom's question was redundant: 3DGeek gave "data showing that SOFA has made accurate predictions" in his post, but now that Tom has asked for some, he has opened the possibility of then dismissing without cause any actual data that is provided. This could be described as 'moving the goalposts' or 'willful ignorance.'

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2017, 08:58:56 PM »
Yes, with a few minutes of research to find one example of an article that specifically cites the astronomical constants used by the IAU programmed into SOFA: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/432/4/3431/1008592/Relativistic-effects-and-dark-matter-in-the-Solar

and also:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-012-0086-6

but really just all of these:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2874842261205802644&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en

//

But also, for those watching, note that Tom's question was redundant: 3DGeek gave "data showing that SOFA has made accurate predictions" in his post, but now that Tom has asked for some, he has opened the possibility of then dismissing without cause any actual data that is provided. This could be described as 'moving the goalposts' or 'willful ignorance.'

I asked for data showing that SOFA is accurate, not random papers like "Constraining the Angular Momentum of the Sun with Planetary Orbital Motions and General Relativity". Where is SOFA tested in any of this?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2017, 09:10:47 PM »
yeah I called it

One could read the papers to find where the IAU is referenced, or try ctrl+f "constants" or "IAU". I recommend reading them though, they're pretty cool.

To clarify in case it's not immediately apparent: The papers use astronomical observations of things like "planetary orbital motions" and they calculate where to look using the IAU's astronomical constants, also known as SOFA, Standards of Fundamental Astronomy.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2017, 09:34:40 PM »
The papers are not specifically about showing the accuracy of SOFA or IAU equations. Please copy and paste any relevant sections rather than directing us to a bunch of random articles which contain the word IAU.

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2017, 09:39:19 PM »
The papers are not specifically about showing the accuracy of SOFA or IAU equations. Please copy and paste any relevant sections rather than directing us to a bunch of random articles which contain the word IAU.
Have you tested timeanddate.com yet?

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2017, 10:45:20 PM »
A few posts ago, Tom wrote:
Where is SOFA tested in any of this?
in response to a set of papers that cited it in reference to successful observations. These constitute successful tests, but Tom has ignored this to press the challenge.

I will point back to this statement:
Quote from: StinkyOne
That's fine if those are his answers. It is a place to start. Gotta have a starting point of things he will accept and work from there.

Consider this paper on using the burden of proof as an arguing strategy:
Quote
From the perspective of a critical discussion, in assertive speech acts – or speech acts to be reconstructed
as assertives – two types of commitment are to be distinguished, which have different procedural
consequences. First, there are assertives advancing a standpoint, or an argument that in the
course of the discussion becomes a substandpoint. These assertives create the specific
commitment that constitutes a burden of proof. Second, there are assertives performed to
establish a starting point for the discussion. These assertives create commitments that can be
used in the argumentation and concluding stages of the discussion. They have the same function
as the formal dialectical concessions, albeit that in a critical discussion such concessions are
made by both parties and the commitments they create can be used in both defending and
attacking a standpoint. Since these assertives can only serve as a starting point when – and
because – they are mutually agreed upon, they do not carry a burden of proof
.

Because Tom continually demands more and more proof of the fact that his opponents' evidence is evidence at all, constantly undercutting efforts to establish an argumentative baseline, he can avoid holding to an argument indefinitely while keeping up an appearance of actually debating. Consider the similar case of a young child responding to any and all assertions with the furtive question, "Why?" No answer will satisfy, and they smile as though they are winning the argument; in truth, they are forfeiting.

ANYWAY

Here are some papers from the IAU specifically about their constants and SOFA:

IAU 2009 constants

An older paper from 1981 with some more explanations of how they are defined

"The chapters in this circular reflect the six main subject areas described above. Each of the chapters contains a list of the relevant IAU resolutions, a summary of the recommendations, an explanatory narrative, and, in most chapters, a collection of formulas used in implementing the recommendations."

But these are indeed beyond the point; SOFA does not actually need Tom's non-existent stamp of approval for this argument to proceed.

The RE guys are giving Tom WAY too many areas to call into question your data and not discuss the actual topic. Keep it simple and talk fundamentals.

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 #53 on: September 16, 2017, 02:26:53 PM »
The papers are not specifically about showing the accuracy of SOFA or IAU equations. Please copy and paste any relevant sections rather than directing us to a bunch of random articles which contain the word IAU.

Good grief Tom!   You are getting REALLY desperate!

Just stop and think about what you're saying for a moment:

You're saying that the official software for calculating the motion of bodies in the solar system - provided by the most respected source of such information for all astronomers around the world is INCORRECT (and not just by a little bit) and not one of all of the tens of thousands of astronomers who are members or affiliated members of the IAU, or any of the engineers who use SOFA (as I do) has ever noticed the discrepancy?

It's like an astronomer would say "Huh!  I got up early today to look at the photos my telescope took - and wouldn't know it?   The darned sun went and rose an hour early (compared to SOFA's predictions) and screwed up my observations of the atmosphere of Venus....Oh well, never mind...I'll just try again tomorrow."

No!   It would be like "HOLY COW!  THE SUN ROSE AN HOUR TOO EARLY!   SOFA clearly has a HORRIBLE BUG in it!   I must rush over to the IAU website and report it...and if they ignore it - I can write a paper about how the equations they use are screwed up!  Every astronomer needs to know about this as a matter of urgency!"

Or probably more like "The sun clearly doesn't behave in a manner consistent with the Earth being Round!!!!!!   I'll get a nobel prize for proving it - a lot of other people are going to notice this!   I'd better get in first by writing a paper to Nature right away!".

Truly - if the Earth really is Flat - it **MUST** produce absolutely identical sunrise and sunset times (moonrise and moonset, Mars-rise and Mars-set, etc) compared to RET mathematical predictions (and therefore to SOFA, TimeAndDate and all of the other sites like that).   If it did not - then a million scientists of all kinds would have noticed the error and jumped in to try to explain it.

The science journals would be brimming over with disproofs of the Round Earth - it would be all over the news...EVERYONE would know about it...Nobel prizes would be awarded.

The only possible way that you can be correct about the Earth being flat is if your hokey ideas, broken geometry and pseudo-math produce results that match PRECISELY the results you'd get if the Earth was round.

If sunrise and sunset numbers (and moon and planet and star positions) differed by as much a millisecond or a milli-arcsecond from the IAU's theoretical values - WE'D KNOW ABOUT IT.

Why can't you comprehend this?

When scientists (and software writers) find a discrepancy - that just made their day!   They tell everyone...it's all over their news feeds within minutes.   If a scientist can find a flaw in "The Way Things Work" compared to theory - then that's their ticket to fame and fortune.   That's a meal ticket for life.

Consider Einstein - he found a problem in the most solidly believed theories of all time (Newton's laws of motion)...within a couple of years, he was famous around the world - he had a job for life in Princeton.

Nobody...and especially not the IAU...could get away with an error of the magnitude it would take for the real-world different sunrise and sunset times to differ from those that mainstream RET predicts.
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: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2017, 03:48:38 PM »
SOFA is a collection of algorithms. We need to know which ones are accurate and which ones are not. Perhaps the ones that are pattern based are accurate and the ones that are geometric have accuracy issues.

You are continually denying the need for basic evidence for the accuracy of SOFA. You prefer imagining that if there was an issue that you would have heard about it rather than looking for the information yourself. Are you a contributor or astronomer who is using SOFA? How do you know how accurate it is? Are all algorithms 100% accurate or are only certain ones mostly accurate?

It is absurd to think that a wide collection of celestial algorithms are entirely accurate in all implementations, considering on the previous page we saw references that 10 complex algorithms are required to make a prediction based on a geometric model. Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 05:45:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #55 on: September 16, 2017, 04:59:51 PM »
Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.

Tom, what should such data look like in your opinion?
 
Also, as others have pointed out, you have obviously gone off on a tangent and derailed the thread (seems to be a pattern with you).

The OP presents a really simple idea -- according to the current FE map, southern hemisphere really should freeze because of how much the sunlight would scatter over that area. This is one of ~1 billion other issues with your little "theory". Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.

Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2017, 05:07:08 PM »
SOFA is a collection of algorithms. We need to know which ones are accurate and which ones are not. Perhaps the ones that are pattern based are accurate and the ones that are geometric have accuracy issues.

You are continually denying the need for basic evidence for the accuracy of SOFA. You prefer imagining that if there was an issue that you would have heard about it rather than looking for the infornation yourself. Are you a contributor or astonomer who is using SOFA? How do you know how accurate it is? Are all algorithms 100% accurate or are only certain ones mostly accurate?

It is absurd to think that a wide collection of celestial algorithms are entirely accurate in all implementations considering on the previous page we saw references that 10 complex algorithms are required to get daylight times based on a geometric model. Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.
Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #57 on: September 16, 2017, 05:51:26 PM »
Assessing accuracy of such a complex device is a basic thing, and that data should exist.

Tom, what should such data look like in your opinion?

Well, one would think that the data should be on the SOFA website somewhere. That should be something to be proud of. But there is not a word about accuracy.
 
Quote
The OP presents a really simple idea -- according to the current FE map, southern hemisphere really should freeze because of how much the sunlight would scatter over that area. This is one of ~1 billion other issues with your little "theory". Until you have an actual response to this, we can count this as yet another loss for flerfers.

The OP is assuming that the RE model of the sun is true ans beyond question in his post, but is unable to present data showing this to be the case.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #58 on: September 16, 2017, 06:03:05 PM »
Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?

Even if the time of sunrise equation was accurate with what happened in reality (the people who present these types of equations sure don't like to talk about accuracy), we still do not know whether that particular equation, one of 76 others in SOFA, is geometric or pattern based yet. Why do you think that simply looking at the time of sunrise is a valid test? The sun has done the same thing for hundreds of years. Don't you think it is possible to create an equation based on its previous patterns?

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Disproof: Why doesn't the southern hemiplane freeze?
« Reply #59 on: September 16, 2017, 06:40:28 PM »
Yes it probably exists. Why should it exist in any location you can see or access? You also failed to address any of the points raised about how quickly the community would jump on issues. Lastly, as he's said multiple times before, 3D does in fact use this software on a fairly regular basis. But that's ok. You don't trust anyone but yourself. Did you check sunrise against the equation today? Or just gonna continue to cry about how we can't know it's accurate without doing any of your own tests to show the inaccuracy?

Even if the time of sunrise equation was accurate with what happened in reality (the people who present these types of equations sure don't like to talk about accuracy), we still do not know whether that particular equation, one of 76 others, is geometric or pattern based yet. Why do you think that simply looking at the time of sunrise is a valid test? The sun has done the same thing for hundreds of years. Don't you think it is possible to create an equation based on its previous patterns?

Looking through their PDF on time, they do have some equations listed. They are "geometric." (Trig) The equation below factors in the Earth's "out of roundness" when converting barycentric dynamic time to terrestrial time to an accuracy of 50 microseconds. Barycentric times factor in relativistic effects. (i.e. time dilation) I feel this should put your mind at ease about this not being a "pattern" based application. The application includes 7 different time standards, including geocentric and atomic. Can we get this thread back on track now???

TDB = barycentic time
TT = terrestrial time

TDB ≃ TT + 0s.001657 sin g
where g = 6.24 + 0.017202 × (JDTT − 2451545) approximates the Earth’s mean anomaly in
radians

Here is a link to barycentric dynamic time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_Dynamical_Time

Here is the link to SOFA's PDF on time:
http://www.iausofa.org/sofa_ts_c.pdf
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 06:44:00 PM by StinkyOne »
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50