"North" has multiple interpretations (according position) = Phew ~

Moon: "Hey Sun, why are you turning to the right? Please turn to the left as usual."

"No, I'm not a sun. I'm a fake sun, made up by Jack & Mike." ~

So sad ....

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree. 

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html

In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.

Sorry about that.  I didn't realize you were talking about basic refraction.

Interesting that you don't believe in refraction because it's a staple in FE theory relating to sunrise/sunset.  That's why I didn't think you were going there.

So are you saying that atmospheric refraction is impossible?

Mike

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.

The "bending" here is well known, causes the light to bend down, and be seen for another 0.5 degrees or so.
It does not help your model at all.

Now how about you explain how the northern pole gets a midnight sun?

All this promise of a phew FE model, but he spends his days creating pointless threads on here. Danang, hurry up and change our perception of the Universe!

Quote from: Danang on February 13, 2018, 04:20:40 PM

So sad ....

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree. 

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html

In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.

Sorry about that.  I didn't realize you were talking about basic refraction.

Interesting that you don't believe in refraction because it's a staple in FE theory relating to sunrise/sunset.  That's why I didn't think you were going there.

So are you saying that atmospheric refraction is impossible?

Mike

What I critique is their inconsistency. When Arctic circle has been defined, stick to it so that people can get the concept clearly. Otherwise the RET looks joking. (In fact, it does). ~

Quote from: Danang on February 13, 2018, 04:20:40 PM

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.

The "bending" here is well known, causes the light to bend down, and be seen for another 0.5 degrees or so.
It does not help your model at all.

Now how about you explain how the northern pole gets a midnight sun?

Scroll down.

All this promise of a phew FE model, but he spends his days creating pointless threads on here. Danang, hurry up and change our perception of the Universe!

What makes you to explore the physics realities? And did you already verify my concepts? To be frank most of them are just 'logics game' based on known data. My concepts might change later in case I find new evidences. Though I predicted it won't change its supposedly "firm basic ideas".

To be specific, what universe did you mean? Of course reality is a huge huge huge complexity. Too many labyrinths in it. I wish I could hurry to unlock it. But I'll do my best.

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 13, 2018, 05:22:22 PM

Quote from: Danang on February 13, 2018, 04:20:40 PM

So sad ....

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree. 

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html

In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.

Sorry about that.  I didn't realize you were talking about basic refraction.

Interesting that you don't believe in refraction because it's a staple in FE theory relating to sunrise/sunset.  That's why I didn't think you were going there.

So are you saying that atmospheric refraction is impossible?

Mike

What I critique is their inconsistency. When Arctic circle has been defined, stick to it so that people can get the concept clearly. Otherwise the RET looks joking. (In fact, it does). ~

What is inconsistent of the definition of the Arctic circle?

Mike

What I critique is their inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency.

Otherwise the RET looks joking. (In fact, it does). ~

Perhaps to you, not to any sane, rational person.

And did you already verify my concepts? To be frank most of them are just 'logics game' based on known data.

Games, perhaps. Logic, definitely not.
I have shown numerous of your concepts to be fundamentally flawed or complete nonsense.

My concepts might change later in case I find new evidences.

Really?
You seem to be ignoring all that evidence.

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:59:54 PM

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

How many north stars are there?

Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere.  Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? 

Mike

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 03:31:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:59:54 PM

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

How many north stars are there?

Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere.  Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? 

Mike

There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 03:51:38 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 03:31:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:59:54 PM

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

How many north stars are there?

Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere.  Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? 

Mike

There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.

Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.

It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.

You’ll have to explain this to me.  How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?

Mike

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

North is just as relative as south.
North is always 180 degrees away from south.

They think the north star is a single resolvable point of light as it is by the naked eye, due to it being observed due north for everyone.

This shows the north pole is a point, not a ring.

If the north pole was a ring like your model needs, then Polaris would be a ring of light, not a point; or there would be multiple "north" stars, which were only due north for some people, with them being north east or north west (even going to the west or south west and east or south east) for others.

This has all been explained to you before.

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 03:51:38 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 03:31:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:59:54 PM

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

How many north stars are there?

Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere.  Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? 

Mike

There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.

Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.

It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.

You’ll have to explain this to me.  How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?

Mike

The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.

The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.

No, that is a verified fact, one you could easily verify yourself.

Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.

Except the constellations are the same for everyone in the north.

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 08:45:04 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 03:51:38 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 03:31:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:59:54 PM

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

How many north stars are there?

Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere.  Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? 

Mike

There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.

Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.

It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.

You’ll have to explain this to me.  How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?

Mike

The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.

That’s just wrong.  Another situation where you could have done some research and it seems you fall short again.

IIUC, you live in the northern hemisphere.  You could easily look northward as see that what you said is false.  Take a time lapse picture of the North Star.  Did you even try or did you just assume?

Mike

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 08:45:04 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 07:17:13 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 03:51:38 AM

Quote from: Danang on February 16, 2018, 03:31:50 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:59:54 PM

Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?

North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.

How many north stars are there?

Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere.  Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? 

Mike

There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.

Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.

It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.

You’ll have to explain this to me.  How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?

Mike

The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.

Typo:
It should be "Since the stars go circling the South pole,..."

Typo:
It should be "Since the stars go circling the South pole,..."

No, it shouldn't.
If your model just has them "circling" the south pole, your model is wrong.

In reality, they appear to circle both poles.
As such, it should be "since the stars go circling both poles..."

If it doesn't, your model is wrong.

So sad ....

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree. 

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html

In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.

Just to clarify, you are stating that refraction of light isn't possible?

Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??

Can I answer that? "The RET" does not "count earth rotation by 360.986°".

Care to try again? You might get it right next time around!

PS The earth rotates exactly 360° in very close to 23.9344699 hours.

Quote from: Danang on February 13, 2018, 04:20:40 PM

So sad ....

Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree. 

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html

In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.

Just to clarify, you are stating that refraction of light isn't possible?

Possible, but to their theory 90 degrees sun distance/position at equinox period is the boundary between bright & dark. It contradicts reality.

Certain lower latitude places -from north pole - undergo 24 hours daylight for 46 days. (At this (initial) period "they should still have night time") While north pole undergoes afterwards. It's a reversed logic. It cannot apply on globe model.

Quote from: Danang on February 12, 2018, 07:23:26 PM

Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??

Can I answer that? "The RET" does not "count earth rotation by 360.986°".

Care to try again? You might get it right next time around!

PS The earth rotates exactly 360° in very close to 23.9344699 hours.

You meant February 14th should be removed? *%^=×(^*@#=_^=#/&

The car's shadow is lazy LOL

Antarctic is cool and Macho. :') It's verified with many similar timelapses.

Arctic circle?? LOL

Possible, but to their theory 90 degrees sun distance/position at equinox period is the boundary between bright & dark. It contradicts reality.

No that isn't.
That is an approximation which ignores refraction and discusses the centre of the sun.
You typically get roughly 0.5 degrees extra from refraction, and 0.25 degrees extra from the size of the sun itself.

So no, while your pathetic straw-man contradicts reality, the actual models based upon a round Earth do not.

Certain lower latitude places -from north pole - undergo 24 hours daylight for 46 days. (At this (initial) period "they should still have night time") While north pole undergoes afterwards. It's a reversed logic. It cannot apply on globe model.

On what way can't this apply on a globe model?
They have a period of 46 days where the sun remains above the horizon. That is perfectly fine.

Meanwhile, it makes absolutely no sense on your model.

The car's shadow is lazy LOL

And what do you mean by that?
This is just another video showing conclusively that you are wrong.
You can tell from the shadow which way the sun appears to be moving.
It appears to be moving in a clockwise direction from above or counter-clockwise direction from below.
This is completely opposite what your model claims.
Hence your model is wrong.

But it is entirely consistent with a globe model.

Antarctic is cool and Macho. :') It's verified with many similar timelapses.

Arctic circle?? LOL

Guess what? So is the Arctic circle.
It's verified with many timelapses.
Face it, your model is wrong.

So going to admit your model is wrong yet?