It's your responsibility to figure out the details of your own damn experiment. I'm not your parent. I'm not your guardian. I don't offer tutoring or support. Once you come up with a real experiment we can talk.
Sure Tom. Like I say, you fell at the first hurdle. Kinda hurts your shins doesn't it?
I am a huge RET proponent, but this time (for the first and probably the last time ever) I have to side with tom bishop. The way you presented your idea was really quite unfair. and each time tom didn't understand your unclearly stated experiment, you insulted him without much provocation.
That's because I'm asking you to think things out and be coherent. You can't do it.
You're the one who can't even think up a workable or coherent experiment. When you figure out what you're talking about feel free to send me a PM.
All I'm asking you to do Tom is think how you might get around the problem. You posed the problem (correctly) that the sun would have moved in the time it takes to reach the second (and consecutive) sticks. The problem is not insurmountable.
How would you overcome it?
You never told him what problem he was trying to overcome that is: finding directions regardless of time due to the sun's position in the sky. It's easy with a watch. and it doesn't work out in FET because there would be a differing speed of change in position (in degrees, not length) if the earth was flat and the sun were simply circling above. But how was tom supposed to know that? It's not something that I thought of right away either. Even now it could be something completely different and I could be wrong because your description was so vague.
Grind tom into the dust intellectually with superior logic and correct observation, don't make a fool of RET and all rationalists, by trying to mess with tom on a superficial level.