Time of day variations based on latitudinal position

AIt is a well known and recorded fact that the further you depart from the equator of the earth, the length of the day varies depending on the season more drastically than at lower latitudes. In fact, in many parts of northern alaska, greenland, and russia,  there is no sunlight for weeks at a time at points. This is because as an object rotates, the edges move faster than the inside. Since these extreme fringes are closer to the axis of rotation (the north and south poles), they rotate at an extremely slow pace, thus causing the skewed day length. Furthermore, because of the position at the pinnacle of a curved surface, the light of the sun cannot always reach the poles because of the angle of the earths curvature. If the earth does not rotate and its surface is not curved, how do the length of the days vary with latitudinal position?

PS--I've experianced the length of the day change based on latitude personnally, so don't try to deny it exists. And government conspiracy answers aren't sufficient, because this has been going on since before governments could conspiratize.

AIt is a well known and recorded fact that the further you depart from the equator of the earth, the length of the day varies depending on the season more drastically than at lower latitudes. In fact, in many parts of northern alaska, greenland, and russia,  there is no sunlight for weeks at a time at points. This is because as an object rotates, the edges move faster than the inside. Since these extreme fringes are closer to the axis of rotation (the north and south poles), they rotate at an extremely slow pace, thus causing the skewed day length. Furthermore, because of the position at the pinnacle of a curved surface, the light of the sun cannot always reach the poles because of the angle of the earths curvature. If the earth does not rotate and its surface is not curved, how do the length of the days vary with latitudinal position?

PS--I've experianced the length of the day change based on latitude personnally, so don't try to deny it exists. And government conspiracy answers aren't sufficient, because this has been going on since before governments could conspiratize.

It
Experienced
Personally
Conspire

Also try capitalizing proper nouns such as Russia, Alaska, and Greenland.

I thought the sun couldn't always reach the poles because the axis of the Earth's rotation isn't perpendicular to it's path around the sun....(not straight up and down)

If I made sense of what you said, the simple answer is the sun moves - although it may not match up with the ice wall on a FE since it extends all around the earth.  And, how does a sphere have an edge?

I apologize, i meant to say "rim" or "surface" Its easier to conceptualize with a record player, although the properties are the same in any rotating object.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the sun moving does something like this:

O (sun)

                  l                                                                  l
                  l                                                                  l (other ice wall)
 (ice wall)     l_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _l
                  (area in shadow)                                   (area in light)


But if that were true, than you are admiting that the sun does not act like a spotlight and is not vertically overhead illuminating certain areas at certain times, and it also only explains the long nights, not the variation of daylight as you go further north or south.

@commoncents--yes, exactly, the earth's non perpendicular axes shrouds large areas in darkness and the effects of a much-slowed rotational speed of the earth due to the relative center elongates those periods to those described.

Nice of you to attack typos ^^

@commoncents--yes, exactly, the earth's non perpendicular axes shrouds large areas in darkness and the effects of a much-slowed rotational speed of the earth due to the relative center elongates those periods to those described.

Nice of you to attack typos ^^

Yes, it is nice of me to correct your mistakes so you can learn from them.

If you actually READ what I said it doesn't have to do with slower rotational speed of the Earth at the point (notice, Earth is the name of a planet so it's a proper noun and is capitalized).  It instead has to do with that side of the planet being leaned to or away from the Sun.  The rotational speed would be the same...1rpd  (1 revolution per day).

I apologize, i meant to say "rim" or "surface" Its easier to conceptualize with a record player, although the properties are the same in any rotating object.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the sun moving does something like this:

O (sun)

                  l                                                                  l
                  l                                                                  l (other ice wall)
 (ice wall)     l_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _l
                  (area in shadow)                                   (area in light)


But if that were true, than you are admiting that the sun does not act like a spotlight and is not vertically overhead illuminating certain areas at certain times, and it also only explains the long nights, not the variation of daylight as you go further north or south.

@commoncents--yes, exactly, the earth's non perpendicular axes shrouds large areas in darkness and the effects of a much-slowed rotational speed of the earth due to the relative center elongates those periods to those described.

Nice of you to attack typos ^^

First, welcome. Second, I ask that you read the RE Primer. It contains an experiment that demonstrate FE's failure in this regard that can be readily observed most anywhere on the planet on most any day. You'll find that FEer have, for the most part, disappeared from the Forum. I believe that the RE Primer leaves them without any hope for substantiating their theory.

Alright, I resign to your wisdom in spelling, grammar and the angle of the Earth.

However, the question of varying day length is still unexplained to me by Flat Earth theorists. Please explain to me how this can happen if the earth is not round and the sun acts as you have previously described. If not, we must assume that the basic logic behind your entire argument is flawed, in that the sun provides light in the manner you have calculated.

Thank you, Gulliver, I shall read that now.

It
Experienced
Personally
Conspire

Also try capitalizing proper nouns such as Russia, Alaska, and Greenland.

I thought the sun couldn't always reach the poles because the axis of the Earth's rotation isn't perpendicular to it's path around the sun....(not straight up and down)

Please, we already have divito correcting our grammar.

Please, we already have divito correcting our grammar.

I haven't done so in awhile, mainly because people whine when I do it. They also seem to incorrectly assume that they should be taken seriously despite the errors. I'm far too lazy to argue with each person that makes mistakes, but I have noticed that it's gotten a bit better minus the newcomers of course.

Quote from: The Communist on July 12, 2007, 07:04:47 PM

Please, we already have divito correcting our grammar.

I haven't done so in awhile, mainly because people whine when I do it. They also seem to incorrectly assume that they should be taken seriously despite the errors. I'm far too lazy to argue with each person that makes mistakes, but I have noticed that it's gotten a bit better minus the newcomers of course.

Sorry...can't resist..."each person who makes mistakes"... It's a irony thingy.

'That' is just as applicable. It's called a relative pronoun.

'That' is just as applicable. It's called a relative pronoun.

Actually at the college level, we expect better use of pronouns, though I suspect that this rule is going the way of the so many other forgotten rules. Reference: Rutgers

Who versus That or Which.

    You should usually use who (and its related forms, whose and whom) only to refer to people, with that or which only for non-human things: "a woman who lived nearby" (not that or which); "a concert that set attendance records" (not who).

    The only time it's advisable to use who-forms with non-human things is in the whose construction: "the cars that were built by Ford," but "the cars whose tires were made by Firestone." That saves you from the very inelegant construction "the cars, the tires of which were made by Firestone." Even there, though, it's still a little clumsy; if you can reword it to avoid referring to a thing as who, consider doing it. [Entry added 12 July 2005.]

Actually at the college level, we expect better use of pronouns, though I suspect that this rule is going the way of the so many other forgotten rules. Reference: Rutgers

Who versus That or Which.

    You should usually use who (and its related forms, whose and whom) only to refer to people, with that or which only for non-human things: "a woman who lived nearby" (not that or which); "a concert that set attendance records" (not who).

    The only time it's advisable to use who-forms with non-human things is in the whose construction: "the cars that were built by Ford," but "the cars whose tires were made by Firestone." That saves you from the very inelegant construction "the cars, the tires of which were made by Firestone." Even there, though, it's still a little clumsy; if you can reword it to avoid referring to a thing as who, consider doing it. [Entry added 12 July 2005.]

'That' is still applicable though. I have habits in regards to using nonstandard aspects in my writing because of my speech. The omittance of 'that' altogether would have been more appropriate and would conform with the standard, and who is more so expected, I agree.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 08:43:04 PM

Actually at the college level, we expect better use of pronouns, though I suspect that this rule is going the way of the so many other forgotten rules. Reference: Rutgers

Who versus That or Which.

    You should usually use who (and its related forms, whose and whom) only to refer to people, with that or which only for non-human things: "a woman who lived nearby" (not that or which); "a concert that set attendance records" (not who).

    The only time it's advisable to use who-forms with non-human things is in the whose construction: "the cars that were built by Ford," but "the cars whose tires were made by Firestone." That saves you from the very inelegant construction "the cars, the tires of which were made by Firestone." Even there, though, it's still a little clumsy; if you can reword it to avoid referring to a thing as who, consider doing it. [Entry added 12 July 2005.]

'That' is still applicable though. I have habits in regards to using nonstandard aspects in my writing because of my speech. The omittance of 'that' altogether would have been more appropriate and would conform with the standard, and who is more so expected, I agree.

Concur. Truce.

Alright, I resign to your wisdom in spelling, grammar and the angle of the Earth.

However, the question of varying day length is still unexplained to me by Flat Earth theorists. Please explain to me how this can happen if the earth is not round and the sun acts as you have previously described. If not, we must assume that the basic logic behind your entire argument is flawed, in that the sun provides light in the manner you have calculated.

Why should I explain the FE model to you if you don't even understand this part of the RE model?  I'd just waste my time telling you and you would butcher it up like you did to RE.

conspiratize.

New favourite word

Its quite simple--you should explain it to me because there is none. I'm calling you out. And I do understand the RE one, thanks to the magical power of the internet.

And I'm sorry that this board has a higher standard of grammar then most i'm familiar with. I know conspiratize isn't a word, but it sure is fun to say when you're expressing sarcasm.

Its quite simple--you should explain it to me because there is none. I'm calling you out. And I do understand the RE one, thanks to the magical power of the internet.

I had to explain it to you though.  You said that the delayed time was due to slower rotational speed at the poles.  The correct reason is the Earth tilting to or away from the Sun at that time of the year.  Why should I now go and describe the FE version if you don't even understand the RE one....


Just to stop your bitching I'll humor you and give you my take on what's happening:

The Sun in the FE model circles the Equator.  Through a regularly occurring turbulence in the UA(Universal Accelerator) it gets rocked back and forth slowly.  This is why it lights up the North more for part of the year and the South more for the other part.  Perhaps it's this same turbulence in the UA which causes the tilting of the Earth to produce tides.

There's a version out there with the Sun circling a point which circles the Equator too.  I don't feel like looking for the pictures so you'll have to use the awesome search feature!

If the earth is rocking back and forth as you describe, why don't we feel the rocking on our various seismograph sensors, laser-based sensors, nuclear weapons detectors that search based on shockwave, etc?

Why don't we notice the Moon pulling the planet in the same devices.

We do. One example is the tide. The other is laser measurments, in which we bounce a laser off the moon.

Those are different devices.  You are avoiding the question.

I am not. One of my examples of sensors was lasers. Lasers was one of my responses. Furthermore, rotational movement can hardly be detected in the same manner erratic rocking movement can because it requires no change in direction, unlike the inversion of direction in your example. That would be detectable by sensors that can read shockwaves.

If the moon is rocking with us how would lasers prove anything.  I never said it was an erratic rocking.  Rocking can be smooth.

wrong. The rocking you indicate would be a disc, correct? The disc has to move up on one side and down on the other. This sufficiently proves the sunlight issue. HOWEVER, if this were happening, when Side A stopped moving down and started moving up, it is literally a sudden reversal of forces and direction, causing a noticeable and recordable force with any of the precise instruments I have reffered to.

If it was rocking around  in a sort of circle, with a dip travelling around the edge, this would not be exhibited. HOWEVER, this would also mean the equator and tropics would undergo the same day-night issue, negating this possibility.

Is there another reasonable explanation? I must admit, that one was quite interesting, although, as shown here, obviously incorrect.

wrong. The rocking you indicate would be a disc, correct? The disc has to move up on one side and down on the other. This sufficiently proves the sunlight issue. HOWEVER, if this were happening, when Side A stopped moving down and started moving up, it is literally a sudden reversal of forces and direction, causing a noticeable and recordable force with any of the precise instruments I have reffered to.

First bold part:  I am unsure of how a rocking MOTION can be a disc...

Second bold part:  You are thinking linearly, I never said "it's tilting, tilting, tilting, BAM HITS A WALL AND TURNS AROUND!"  I say it slows down, eventually has a point of stop, and reverses.  One of the 'rules' of animation is "Ease-in/Ease-out" which tells you that to make something look naturally you usually have to have it ease into and out of motion.

Such as you describe would still provide for detection because of the instability and reversal of direction, no matter how abrupt, although it would be more apparent on laser detectors.

The rocking you indicate would be exhibited on a disc, correct

Fixed, just for you ^^

What are your laser detectors pointing at?  Wait, the Earth tilting has nothing to do with the Light answer...It's an answer to tides that I remember TomB or someone posting.

If its an answer to tides, then I suppose the earth tilts two ways at once, since tides occur AT THE OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE PLANET

Laser sensors detect even the faintest wiggle along any long straight surface. As you "ease into rest," they are horizontally across the earth. If the earth was as you say, they would detect the stop of the earth becase, as you and I are well aware, the earth has different masses and densities at all points. In short, this mountain would go down further than the earth around it because it is more dense. This discrepency would be noted on any sensor, as a mountain moving is no small shake. The laws of newtonian physics force this reaction to occur--a motion trys to stay in motion until an outside force acts on it.

FURTHERMORE, lasers pointed at the moon would also detect this odd wobble as their angle shifted in opposite directions when it, in actuality, only shifts in one direction.

Again, the tilting tide theory is not my own.  I, therefore, will cease trying to defend it.  I merely mentioned it because it could tie into my tilting Sun theory.


If you wish to keep a 'score' then yes, you have bested me at trying to defend a theory that is not my own.  Congratulations, you win...um...nothing really.


Just out of curiosity, do you think I believe the Earth is flat or round?