From my diagrams it is obvious that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Eastern Australia (and above the whole Tasmanian island) and that the Sun is ABOVE the horizon in one part of Western Africa IN THE SAME TIME!!! So, two hypothetical observers (one of which observers would be placed in Australia, and one of them would observe the Sun from Africa), clearly could see that the Sun is FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME!
I don't think anyone is disputing the basic premise, but how do your diagrams make it
clear that the Sun is "fully raised"? You don't provide any legend or explanation of the meaning of the various shades of blue on the day-night map. The definition for sunrise and sunset used for USNO's timings is when the very top edge of the sun appears and disappears, respectively; there's nothing to indicate the line between brightest blue and the first darker shade doesn't correspond to exactly the same thing.
In this case your holly refraction crap can't help you, because the Sun would be FULLY RAISED above the horizon IN THE SAME TIME.
Refraction still applies and
extends daylight at least two minutes on each end.
We have to shorten the time between sunrise and sunset by at least three minutes on each end?
No, we lengthen it by that amount.
Well, 3 minutes on each end is still far away from 50 minutes (off), that you have to compensate to make this possible on the round globe!
Because you're counting meridians, those 50 minutes apply only on the equinoxes, and at the equinoxes, the sun will already have set in Dakar when it rises in eastern Australia. Probably by 50 minutes or so. The example you're using is on or near the southern solstice. That's how your "50 minutes" is made irrelevant.
You have had this error pointed out numerous times by different people. Please read and think about the answers you get.Our efforts are useless. He clearly can't read. Let him live his delusion if it makes him feel good.
"Jet", unfortunately, seems to be right. We can hope that at least
someone will see this and learn something, even if you won't.
In your picture of a globe, we can see East Coast of Australia, but we can barely see East Coast of South America, and what we have to see instead of East Coast of South America is West Coast of Africa.
That's because it was set up for your "noon in SLC sunrise in Australia" scenario.
Sun transit (local solar noon) at SLC is at 19:21 UTC for December 11. Remember that
Dakar sunset is 18:41 on that date; this means that at High Noon in SLC the Sun's already been down for 40 minutes in Dakar. No wonder you can't see the west coast of Africa from that position.
How far off would be the Sun for an observer in Africa if the Earth were a globe (in our particular example)? Roughly 1000 miles (half a distance between East Coast of Brasil and West Coast of Africa)!
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If you are asking where the sub-solar point would be as the Sun is setting in Dakar on that date? That's probably somewhere around 100° W, in the eastern South Pacific off the coast of Chile. How'd you get it in the middle of the Atlantic?
I have checked it with several experiments using different distances, different light bulbs and the model of a globe.
Although West Coast of Africa is 6 hours away from the sun (which is quarter of a full circle), and Australia is 7 hours away from the same spot (meridian), the tilt of the Earth is making a huge difference, so the results of my experiments are as follows:
Yes. That's what we've been saying all along.
- A line of light can reach the edge of Australian Eastern Coast (because a globe is TILTED towards the source of light), but light can't reach West Coast of Africa (because a globe is TILTED AWAY from the same source of light)!!!
How far away was the light? Believe it or not, this makes a huge difference, and I suspect it's too close for what you're trying to do.
Did you use a bare bulb, as requested, or spotlights?
- Now, if you brought in " a holly refraction" (or anything else) as a crucial factor of this game, you should be aware that by trying to make possible for light to reach West Africa from this particular meridian (above which the source of light is placed), you have to increase enlightened portion of West Australia also. So, on one side, you have to prevent increasing the amount of surface of enlightened portion of West Australia, and on the other side, you have to be able to increase the distances which light rays can reach in the direction of West Africa by using the same METHOD-EXCUSE ("holly refraction")!
What's a "holly refraction"? At your first use I assumed it was a typo, but apparently it's not. So what is it?
If refraction makes the light spill too far west into Australia, then just turn the globe toward the west so the light ends where you want it. This brings W Africa closer to the light. Sheesh!
You can't do that in this way!
Can't do what in what way?
That is how your tilt presumption became your HC grave!
If you want to dispute what i just have said, make the experiment and show me that i am wrong!
Since you apparently didn't read or didn't comprehend the earlier answer about this experiment, why should I bother doing any experiments for you?
In the meantime, try to answer, how you can explain away this ratio between DAY and NIGHT (7 : 5) on your model of a globe:
Your map is horribly distorted. It shows the region "outside" (south of) the equator having three times the area as the region "inside" (north of) the equator. Since the Sun is illuminating more of the southern region, the area on your map makes it look vastly larger. On a globe, the split is close to 1 : 1. This is the sort of reason this map is a poor representation of the spherical globe and useless for making meaningful comparisons of distances, directions, and areas.
As i already said several times, you can't help yourself even with the great help of the alleged tilt of a globe!
You said yourself that the tilt makes a huge difference.
the tilt of the Earth is making a huge difference
And the truth is that there is no tilt of a globe, there is no rotation of a globe, there is no revolution of a globe, and there is no globe in the first place!!!
See my signature line.