The suns pool of light on a FE

The images in the OP assumes that the earth is a globe. It isn't.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 02, 2013, 07:19:50 PM

The images in the OP assumes that the earth is a globe. It isn't.

The images in the OP illustrate the lit areas of the earths surface on the polar projection FE map using recorded data from the given locations. Get your facts straight Tom.

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 02, 2013, 11:52:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 02, 2013, 07:19:50 PM

The images in the OP assumes that the earth is a globe. It isn't.

The images in the OP illustrate the lit areas of the earths surface on the polar projection FE map using recorded data from the given locations. Get your facts straight Tom.

What recorded data? We've been asking for such records for years.

...

I started by collecting the the sunrise and sunset times for varying latitudes for 3 times of the year 20th December, 20th June and 20th March.



I started at 80^o north as the north pole really only experiences 1 sunrise and sunset a year and I only went down to -60^o as there's not much land mass below this apart from the "controversial" Antarctica.

...

Quote from: John Davis on July 29, 2013, 11:18:56 AM

There is a reason its called luminiferous aether and not aether - the refer to different entities. And a reason people choose to call it a "space medium" rather than aether - fashion.

In addition, the big bang model has snuck in an absolute coordinate system - which could just as easily have been labeled aether.

The discussion of whether aether exists is the discussion of whether space exists and has properties (such as permeability and permitivity). Calling it another name is nothing more than semantics. Space exists and it has properties. Aether wind model holders just think about said properties differently.

What a load of nonsensical re-writing of history. Aether is not (and never has been) a synonym for space; the Greeks thought it was some sort of magical air that the gods breathed, Plato thought it was an actual element, Aristotle thought it was changeless and characterless... etc. Modern thinkers imagined it as a medium for transmitting forces which has now been proven not to exist - before we understood the specifics of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, there were those who assumed that some sort of "aether" was needed as a bounding agent - since made obsolete by a hundred years of direct evidence. No interpretation of aether is, or ever was, a synonym for what we know as "space" which is not homogeneous in (aether always was), nor required for electromagnetic propagation.

Aether as a concept is entirely obsolete, and has been proven directly. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantics, at all.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2013, 01:10:55 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 02, 2013, 11:52:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 02, 2013, 07:19:50 PM

The images in the OP assumes that the earth is a globe. It isn't.

The images in the OP illustrate the lit areas of the earths surface on the polar projection FE map using recorded data from the given locations. Get your facts straight Tom.

What recorded data? We've been asking for such records for years.

Quote from: Manarq on February 01, 2013, 04:00:11 AM

...

I started by collecting the the sunrise and sunset times for varying latitudes for 3 times of the year 20th December, 20th June and 20th March.



I started at 80^o north as the north pole really only experiences 1 sunrise and sunset a year and I only went down to -60^o as there's not much land mass below this apart from the "controversial" Antarctica.

...

That was in the OP, guess you missed it...

Oh, and I can verify it is correct for 30° South, and I am certain it would be easily verifiable at all other latitudes as well, just contact someone at that latitude and get them to record sunrise and sunset times for you on the given dates.

Quote from: pax on July 29, 2013, 07:32:41 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 29, 2013, 11:18:56 AM

There is a reason its called luminiferous aether and not aether - the refer to different entities. And a reason people choose to call it a "space medium" rather than aether - fashion.

In addition, the big bang model has snuck in an absolute coordinate system - which could just as easily have been labeled aether.

The discussion of whether aether exists is the discussion of whether space exists and has properties (such as permeability and permitivity). Calling it another name is nothing more than semantics. Space exists and it has properties. Aether wind model holders just think about said properties differently.

What a load of nonsensical re-writing of history. Aether is not (and never has been) a synonym for space; the Greeks thought it was some sort of magical air that the gods breathed, Plato thought it was an actual element, Aristotle thought it was changeless and characterless... etc. Modern thinkers imagined it as a medium for transmitting forces which has now been proven not to exist - before we understood the specifics of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, there were those who assumed that some sort of "aether" was needed as a bounding agent - since made obsolete by a hundred years of direct evidence. No interpretation of aether is, or ever was, a synonym for what we know as "space" which is not homogeneous in (aether always was), nor required for electromagnetic propagation.

Aether as a concept is entirely obsolete, and has been proven directly. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantics, at all.

Einstein, for one, used it as a synonym for the properties of space-time. Lorenz had his fingers in a similar pie. I could list several contemporary physicists working the field (though I won't so their name won't be tied with us due to courtesy) that would readily admit aether is an exceptable name for the space medium if it wasn't "out of fashion" or "scientifically politically incorrect".

As the OP I'll clarify this. No I didn't go around the world collecting times and I did use a Sunrise and Sunset calculator. I apologise if my original wording caused any confusion.

Now Tom if you're asserting that these calculators give an incorrect prediction for the sunrise and sunset times then please provide your evidence, else you're just denying them as they're inconvenient for your personal world view.

From my experience the times are accurate for South Africa, Cuba, Egypt, Britain, Bulgaria and Spain.

Quote from: Manarq on August 03, 2013, 08:58:35 AM

As the OP I'll clarify this. No I didn't go around the world collecting times and I did use a Sunrise and Sunset calculator. I apologise if my original wording caused any confusion.

Now Tom if you're asserting that these calculators give an incorrect prediction for the sunrise and sunset times then please provide your evidence, else you're just denying them as they're inconvenient for your personal world view.

From my experience the times are accurate for South Africa, Cuba, Egypt, Britain, Bulgaria and Spain.

Great! I'm glad you agree that there are no records.

Posting a claim here and asking others to disprove it is rather stupid. I encourage you to smarten up. Instead of asking us to prove a negative, or "disprove" your unsourced claims, perhaps you guys can begin by proving your own claims.

I still don't see any records.

I still don't see any records.

The images in the OP assumes that the earth is a globe. It isn't.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2013, 10:40:29 AM

I still don't see any records.

And I don't see you peer reviewing the sunrise/sunset calculators.

Posting a claim here and asking others to disprove it is rather stupid. I encourage you to smarten up. Instead of asking us to prove a negative, or "disprove" your unsourced claims, perhaps you guys can begin by proving your own claims.

Ok, my mistake, they were not records. Rather, they were accurate calculations which, as we have discussed before, have been used around the world without complaint, implying that they are accurate for many, many locations.

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 03, 2013, 05:53:26 PM

Ok, my mistake, they were not records. Rather, they were accurate calculations which, as we have discussed before, have been used around the world without complaint, implying that they are accurate for many, many locations.

Where are the reports to confirm that?

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 03, 2013, 05:53:26 PM

Ok, my mistake, they were not records. Rather, they were accurate calculations which, as we have discussed before, have been used around the world without complaint, implying that they are accurate for many, many locations.

Where are the reports to confirm that?

I can confirm its accuracy.

From my experience the times are accurate for South Africa, Cuba, Egypt, Britain, Bulgaria and Spain.

...I can verify it is correct for 30° South...

Children posting here "yep, I confirmed it," seeking to win debates, is not a credible report. The reports must be independent and third party.

If you can find some independent reports from people who do not post on this forum, that would be a start.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 05, 2013, 08:27:57 AM

If you can find some independent reports from people who do not post on this forum, that would be a start.

Tom, you obviously read both question and yet for some strange reason were only willing to answer the first of them. Is there any particular reason why you're unwilling to let us know if the calculators are accurate for your location?

No, they aren't.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2011, 09:48:43 AM

It doesn't really matter if it can be calculated or not if the calculations don't match reality.

A few years ago I checked the accuracy of the calculation in my local newspaper for the sunset time and it was 40 minutes off.

Was the prediction 40 minutes early or 40 minutes late?  Where were you at the time of the observation?  What was the local geography like?  Did the sun set over water or over land?  What was your elevation at the time?  Was the FET prediction for sunset any different from the RET prediction in the newspaper?

Just saying that the prediction was off doesn't mean a whole lot unless you can give us all of the details that could affect the observed sunset.

Children posting here "yep, I confirmed it," seeking to win debates, is not a credible report. The reports must be independent and third party.

Children posting here "yep, I confirmed it," seeking to win debates, is not a credible report. The reports must be independent and third party.

Quote from: Manarq on August 05, 2013, 08:31:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 05, 2013, 08:27:57 AM

If you can find some independent reports from people who do not post on this forum, that would be a start.

Tom, you obviously read both question and yet for some strange reason were only willing to answer the first of them. Is there any particular reason why you're unwilling to let us know if the calculators are accurate for your location?

No, they aren't.

Two months ago, I noticed the sun rise and sun set times were off by a good half hour.  Does "set" not mean, "sitting on the horizon"?

Two months ago, I noticed the sun rise and sun set times were off by a good half hour.  Does "set" not mean, "sitting on the horizon"?

Sunrise was earlier and sunset was later. Nothing in the way.