What did happen to the lost 6 hours in a year?

Brotherhood doesn’t get off to a good start here by assuming two unrelated properties of the system are the same thing. 

The “problem” of an extra 6 hours a year is clearly not shown on the illustration he posted.

The diagram shows a 12 hour shift in 6 months, so it obviously can’t be the same as the (roughly) 6 hours leap years account for.

The difference between the mean solar day and the sidereal day must add up to a full rotation over the course of a year.  But the year not being divisible by a exact number of days could leave any number of hours spare. It just happens to be about 6.

As is often the case, what Brotherhood thought was a gotcha moment for disproving the heliocentric model, is actually more evidence in support of it.

It’s yet another thing that Flat Earthers need to explain if they expect anyone to take their model seriously.

Brotherhood doesn’t get off to a good start here by assuming two unrelated properties of the system are the same thing. 

The “problem” of an extra 6 hours a year is clearly not shown on the illustration he posted.

The diagram shows a 12 hour shift in 6 months, so it obviously can’t be the same as the (roughly) 6 hours leap years account for.

The difference between the mean solar day and the sidereal day must add up to a full rotation over the course of a year.  But the year not being divisible by a exact number of days could leave any number of hours spare. It just happens to be about 6.

As is often the case, what Brotherhood thought was a gotcha moment for disproving the heliocentric model, is actually more evidence in support of it.

It’s yet another thing that Flat Earthers need to explain if they expect anyone to take their model seriously.

Good sabotage try. But I don't agree with any of your writings. Human is a human as its questions. I'm questioning because I'm human. You are trying to prevent the questioning, so what are you?

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 22, 2018, 08:46:48 AM

Brotherhood doesn’t get off to a good start here by assuming two unrelated properties of the system are the same thing. 

The “problem” of an extra 6 hours a year is clearly not shown on the illustration he posted.

The diagram shows a 12 hour shift in 6 months, so it obviously can’t be the same as the (roughly) 6 hours leap years account for.

The difference between the mean solar day and the sidereal day must add up to a full rotation over the course of a year.  But the year not being divisible by a exact number of days could leave any number of hours spare. It just happens to be about 6.

As is often the case, what Brotherhood thought was a gotcha moment for disproving the heliocentric model, is actually more evidence in support of it.

It’s yet another thing that Flat Earthers need to explain if they expect anyone to take their model seriously.

Good sabotage try. But I don't agree with any of your writings. Human is a human as its questions. I'm questioning because I'm human. You are trying to prevent the questioning, so what are you?

What are you talking about?

You asked a question, which other posters answered with explanations of leap years or the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day.

That could easily be confusing, because it wasn’t entirely clear what your issue was.

So I attempted to clarify that they are separate aspects of the system and shouldn’t be rolled into one question.

I fail to see how giving more information equals sabotage.

What does that make me?  A human trying to be helpful.

PS. I am 1247 posts short of your arbitrary limit.  Why not remove that from your signature if you’re not going to abide by your own rules?

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 22, 2018, 12:21:06 AM

I will point out that 24 and 23:56:04.0905 are BOTH correct. The earth spins once every 24 hours in relation to the sun, and every 23:56:04.0905 hours in relation to the stars and our orbit.

You claim the daytime as 23:56:04.0905, because there is no exit without it. This is like the magnetic declination hoax.

Your 23:56:04.0905 is never observed in real life. Our clocks work properly. We deterimne in summer the daytime while increasing. And they decreases in only winter. So your daytime should be 23:56:04.0905 in winters and 24:04 in summers. But it isn't. Meanwhile you don't claim such a thing.

24 hours exactly for the earth to rotate once in relation to the sun. You have the exact same time on FE. The sun takes exactly 24 hours to travel across the sky.
23:56:04.0905 hours to rotate in relation to the stars. Which means that after half a year, we see the stars differently in the sky depending on the seasons. This IS observable and has been observed throughout time. Take a picture of the stars from the same location and at the same time of day, 2/5/6 months apart, and you will CLEARLY see that the stars in the pictures are not at the same location in the sky. Clearly showing that the sun and the stars are not traversing the sky at the same speed.
The stars rotation however matches the seasons of the year, with them having almost exactly 1 more rotation compared with the sun as observed in the sky, further providing logical evidense towards the globe earth model.

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 22, 2018, 08:46:48 AM

Brotherhood doesn’t get off to a good start here by assuming two unrelated properties of the system are the same thing. 

The “problem” of an extra 6 hours a year is clearly not shown on the illustration he posted.

The diagram shows a 12 hour shift in 6 months, so it obviously can’t be the same as the (roughly) 6 hours leap years account for.

The difference between the mean solar day and the sidereal day must add up to a full rotation over the course of a year.  But the year not being divisible by a exact number of days could leave any number of hours spare. It just happens to be about 6.

As is often the case, what Brotherhood thought was a gotcha moment for disproving the heliocentric model, is actually more evidence in support of it.

It’s yet another thing that Flat Earthers need to explain if they expect anyone to take their model seriously.

Good sabotage try. But I don't agree with any of your writings. Human is a human as its questions. I'm questioning because I'm human. You are trying to prevent the questioning, so what are you?

It is only good to question things, but when you actively deny the answers that are given by multiple people who all agree with each other, just because they do not serve your viewpoint, and you seem either unwilling or unable to understand the logic no matter how simply we explain it, after which you proclaim victory to yourself, that my friend is simply narrowminded and ignorant, and it serves NO purpose for a debate.

Because in a 3d space, a bunch of stars means nothing for any of planet. This is not a proof, this is not an observe. Nobody has observed this.

Oh but a bunch of stars mean everything in a 3D space. Without them, no celestial navigation in the good ol’ days of seafaring to begin with ...

Furthermore, stars have been used and observed to provide evidence or proof for all kinds of neato stuff: gravitational lensing of light, the age, scale and expansion rate of the universe through stellar parallax, finding exoplanets via stellar wobble, existence of black holes, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Very exiting once you delve into it. I highly recommend looking into it.

That being said, it’s not even sure the 3 known spatial dimensions are the only ones. String theorists trying to unify quantum mechanics and relativity think there might be up to 11 dimensions.

I wonder how a 11D flat earth looks like?

It is only good to question things, but when you actively deny the answers that are given by multiple people who all agree with each other, just because they do not serve your viewpoint, and you seem either unwilling or unable to understand the logic no matter how simply we explain it, after which you proclaim victory to yourself, that my friend is simply narrowminded and ignorant, and it serves NO purpose for a debate.

To expand on this.  No one has to like the answers they are given.

It’s OK to find it unsatisfactory and pick holes in it.
It’s OK to think there could be another explanation.
It’s OK to not understand and ask for clarification.

But if you declare that a model is broken and it can’t explain a certain phenomenon, you cannot deny the explanation given by that model on the grounds you don’t believe in any of it.  It’s consistent with itself, regardless of whether or not it is actually the truth.

Why demand answers to questions if you are going to reject the answers no matter what?

Brotherhood may have been unaware that this is explained in the model (although he could have taken 5 minutes to google it before claiming a Flat Earth victory), and that’s OK too.  Just about.  But now he knows there is an explanation built into model, he should no longer claim that it isn’t.

you can not think in 3D. my explanations are enough. your explanations are confusing. I do not have to answer any of them. I do not have to agree your so called explanations.

If the reader is really stupid as your pre acceptance, so your explanations will be enough for them. I did not find these explanations coming from the same gang as convincing. whatever you write, in vain.

you can not think in 3D. my explanations are enough. your explanations are confusing. I do not have to answer any of them. I do not have to agree your so called explanations.

If the reader is really stupid as your pre acceptance, so your explanations will be enough for them. I did not find these explanations coming from the same gang as convincing. whatever you write, in vain.

It is very easy to think 3D, we can even perfectly simulate it, and I can even barely think in 4D which is extremely hard. But for this specific question, 2D is plenty.
We have clear observations that show us the exact times we have provided.
Currently you are just so focused on proving us wrong that you cant even agree to a single logical fact or acknowledge the observations, and you are so trapped in your FE mind, that you will not listen to any logic which contradicts it.

Using a very very basic 3D model with only the sun, moon, earth and backdrop stars (skybox is the technical term), it is possible to show and predict a ton of things that are observed. The sun and moon angle in the sky from anywhere on the planet, the lunar phases, the stars rotation around our poles, eclipses, and more.
This is clearly impossible with the flat earth, or someone would have made it by now.

So I have a challenge for you...
Think back and find a single instance where you agreed with a globe earth logic, and actually wrote that you agreed with it.
I'll bet your answer will be something like 'there is no logic' or 'I have never been wrong' as I have yet to see anything else from you.

You claim the daytime as 23:56:04.0905, because there is no exit without it. This is like the magnetic declination hoax.

Your 23:56:04.0905 is never observed in real life.

No, it is "claimed" because that is what all the evidence shows.
Look at a distant star. Note its position, then time how long it takes to get back.
Do this over a period of weeks or months for a more accurate result. You will note that it doesn't show up at the same time each day, instead it appears to drift.

You can also measure the same result with a laser ring gyroscope.

Our clocks work properly.

Our clocks are timed based upon the sun, the length of a mean solar day, not a sidereal day.
It has already been explained why they are different.

And even a solar day will change in length. So that is clearly not a decent measure for the rotation of Earth.

you can not think in 3D. my explanations are enough. your explanations are confusing. I do not have to answer any of them. I do not have to agree your so called explanations.

If the reader is really stupid as your pre acceptance, so your explanations will be enough for them. I did not find these explanations coming from the same gang as convincing. whatever you write, in vain.

No, your explanations are wrong, completely ignoring the difference between a sidereal day and solar day. It has been explained to you repeatedly, with people even providing pictures to help. You are the one relying on people being stupid to accept your nonsense.

If you want anyone to take you seriously you will need to do more than just assert others are nonsense.

Here are 2 simple questions for you:
If Earth rotated once every orbit around the sun, how long would a day be?
What about if Earth rotated twice every orbit?
(both assuming the same direction of rotation).

I adore that "sidefake" is thought to be the opposite of "sidereal."

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 22, 2018, 12:21:06 AM

I will point out that 24 and 23:56:04.0905 are BOTH correct. The earth spins once every 24 hours in relation to the sun, and every 23:56:04.0905 hours in relation to the stars and our orbit.

You claim the daytime as 23:56:04.0905.

No we do not! Learn what a sidereal day is!

you can not think in 3D. my explanations are enough. your explanations are confusing. I do not have to answer any of them. I do not have to agree your so called explanations.

If the reader is really stupid as your pre acceptance, so your explanations will be enough for them. I did not find these explanations coming from the same gang as convincing. whatever you write, in vain.

The “explanations coming from the same gang” are the standard explanations.  Which is why you can easily find them in places like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

You declared the heliocentric model broken based on what you incorrectly said it predicts, not on what it actually predicts.  Your original claim cannot logically be defended, regardless of whether you believe the model or not.

If you are genuinely interested in questioning the model, you can test the numbers yourself.  All you need is a cheap home telescope with a half decent mount and tripod with angles marked on it.  Measure the position of a star on the meridian and repeat over several nights at exactly the same time.  See how far it moves and calculate the sidereal day.

Alternatively, take a long exposure photo of the stars centered on Polaris.  Long enough to show the stars as big arcs.  The length of the arc and the exposure time of the photo can be used to calculate the sidereal day.

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome on April 22, 2018, 12:38:30 PM

you can not think in 3D. my explanations are enough. your explanations are confusing. I do not have to answer any of them. I do not have to agree your so called explanations.

If the reader is really stupid as your pre acceptance, so your explanations will be enough for them. I did not find these explanations coming from the same gang as convincing. whatever you write, in vain.

The “explanations coming from the same gang” are the standard explanations.  Which is why you can easily find them in places like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

You declared the heliocentric model broken based on what you incorrectly said it predicts, not on what it actually predicts.  Your original claim cannot logically be defended, regardless of whether you believe the model or not.

If you are genuinely interested in questioning the model, you can test the numbers yourself.  All you need is a cheap home telescope with a half decent mount and tripod with angles marked on it.  Measure the position of a star on the meridian and repeat over several nights at exactly the same time.  See how far it moves and calculate the sidereal day.

Alternatively, take a long exposure photo of the stars centered on Polaris.  Long enough to show the stars as big arcs.  The length of the arc and the exposure time of the photo can be used to calculate the sidereal day.

Nice observational experiments. Though over a single night there would only be approximately half a degree difference on star trails according to the math, and even less if the shot only lasts for a few hours, which is hard to measure.

But looking through the telescope each night should be better to show the difference of approximately 1 degree each 24 hours, and is way easier to measure over several days.

True.  I should have said the difference on the photo would be very small.

People did still manage to do this experiment with film.

Nowadays it’s not actually all that  difficult with a high resolution image downloaded into a CAD package to measure the angles.  Fractions of a degree can be determined as long you are careful to find the actual center which isn’t exactly on Polaris.

You can also measure 10, 20 or more arcs from the same photo and take an average which should reduce any error in your measurements.