Trig's experiment

Just to show that I do the experiments and not just talk about them, I have just measured the direction where the Sun rose. It was 98^o, which was 8 degrees South of what I expected. The difference between magnetic and true North for my location (4^oN, 75^oW) is about 5^oW, and the time of the measurement (7:40 am) gives us a small error (about 1^o). Also, the date when the measurement was done gives us another small error (about 2^o), and the quality of the compass used gives us an additional 5^o of error, giving us about 10^o of expected maximum error.

By contrast, the measurement, for my location, should have been about 45^o (that is a NE direction) for the Flat Earth model (as much as it is defined) to be validated.

I assert that there is no explanation for this on a flat earth. What do the flat guys have to say on this topic?

Here's the key bit:

the Flat Earth model (as much as it is defined)

What model is he using? He says "as much as it is defined", but what's important here is the model he was taking to represent FET, and the basis of the figures he came up with for it.


Without that information, nobody can assess his results in any meaningful way.

Here's the key bit:

Quote from: trig on March 27, 2010, 08:15:57 AM

the Flat Earth model (as much as it is defined)

What model is he using? He says "as much as it is defined", but what's important here is the model he was taking to represent FET, and the basis of the figures he came up with for it.


Without that information, nobody can assess his results in any meaningful way.

Well, you explain it with the model you think is correct, and let's see if it works.

This thread is about his results, and you've made it in Flat Earth Debate, so let's stick to the topic at hand. You've been pretty quick to throw your support behind trig's conclusions, yet as I've just shown, you have absolutely no reason or basis for doing so. You have no idea how he got the figures he did, or what his assumptions were, and yet you didn't hesitate to proclaim that it constitutes evidence against FET. Given that, how can you possibly jump to such a conclusion?


I'd like to add a further point, which is that I see no validation, justification or explanation of the variables given in order to reconcile his results with RET. Combined with the other missing information, I don't see how any model can be assessed in a meaningful way using his 'data'. I'm not saying he can't justify those variables or provide that information, just that so far, he hasn't. Without that, no conclusions can be drawn.

This thread is about his results, and you've made it in Flat Earth Debate, so let's stick to the topic at hand. You've been pretty quick to throw your support behind these trig's conclusion, yet as I've just shown, you have absolutely no reason or basis for doing so. You have no idea how he got the figures he did, or what his assumptions were, and yet you didn't hesitate to proclaim that it constitutes evidence against FET. Given that, how can you possibly jump to such a conclusion?


I'd like to add a further point, which is that I see no validation, justification or explanation of the variables given in order to reconcile his results with RET. Combined with the other missing information, I don't see how any model can be assessed in a meaningful way using his 'data'. I'm not saying he doesn't have it, just that without it, no conclusions can be drawn.

So as long as there is no consensus about the most basic assumptions of a Flat Earth, the Flat Earth concept can never be disqualified. Way to make the entire FE premise unfalsifiable.  Exactly how many thousands of years must elapse before we have an accurate FE map? At a minimum, a consensus on whether or not Antarctica is an island or a wall should exist by now.

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.



Anyone who is standing on the border between white and blue is looking right toward the Sun in this diagram, and that is the same as due East.

Therefore, if the Sun is seen due East at dawn in this particular day that is clear evidence that this model is correct.

Next point: since the easiest way to measure the azimuth of the Sun is through the use of a compass and the Magnetic North does not correspond to the Real North, you have to find the correction for your location. You can either search for a source for this information (there are many in the Internet) or you can find it yourself comparing the azimuth at dawn with the azimuth at dusk. In my case, the correction is 6 degrees West, so I have to subtract 6 degrees from my observed azimuth. 98 degrees (observed minus 6 degrees of correction is 92 degrees of azimuth.

Then, as in any scientific observation, some quantification of the error has to be made. In my case, the quality of the compass and the possibility of magnetic sources in the area were the most important factors to analyze. I decided, by repeating the same measurement several times in slightly different locations, that an error of less than 10 degrees is repeatably achievable. Plus, the measurement was made some 7 days late and a little after dawn. Those 7 days will make the azimuth decrease by about 1 degree every four days and the two hours after dawn would make the azimuth increase by about 2/3 of a degree per hour, so both errors approximately cancel out.

In conclusion, the expected measurement with respect to real science is an azimuth of 90 degrees and the measured result was 92 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees, or well within the expected error.

By contrast, a sun hovering above Earth in circles, about 3000 miles above Earth and, during the Equinox, hovering directly above the Equator, would be seen by an observer on the Equator at an azimuth of 45 degrees at dawn. Since I am slightly North of the Equator (4 degrees) we can draw a triangle that has the Sun over the Equator (6366 km away from the North Pole), an observer at 4 degrees North (6083 km from the North Pole) and the other point over the North Pole, with a right angle over the North Pole. Predictably, the azimuth that should have been observed, if the information above is right, would have increased to just under 47 degrees.

There is no way the observed azimuth was wrong by 45 degrees. Navigators have trusted their lives to compass measurements for centuries and survived, so completely wrong compass measurements would have to have an explanation.

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.

Proof? How do we know that the sun is directly over the equator at equinox, and not southward of it to give us our 12 hour days?

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

Bugger off.

Quote

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.

Proof? How do we know that the sun is directly over the equator at equinox, and not southward of it to give us our 12 hour days?

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

Bugger off.

Because if it wasn't overhead then it wouldn't be called the equinox. duh.

If the Earth was flat Tom, then the Sun would always appear as an ellipse when it rises and sets, with circular shape happening only when it is close to being overhead. No such drastic change occurs. The Sun obviously keeps circular at all times, and it does not change dimensions during the course of the day. It also rises from the horizontal and sets in the horizontal, without any indication that it behaves like a revolving spotlight hovering over the earth. Even bendy light theory doesn't cover up that massive gap in FE 'theory'.

Trig did a valid experiment and reached sensible conclusions, much more than any other FE'er has ever bothered to do on this forum.

Quote

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.

Proof? How do we know that the sun is directly over the equator at equinox, and not southward of it to give us our 12 hour days?

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

Bugger off.

You know, I'm getting really tired of this hypocrisy you have.
You want data but then you fail to present data of your own when we ask for it.  
Got any data on Bendy Light?  No?  Bugger off.
Got any data on the conspiracy?  No?  Bugger off.
God any data to show that all satellites are fake?  No?  Bugger off.
Got any data to show distance between various locations to show that current maps are inaccurate?  No?  Bugger off.

You really want raw data for something people living on the equator have witnessed for thousands of years?

Quote

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.

Proof? How do we know that the sun is directly over the equator at equinox, and not southward of it to give us our 12 hour days?

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

Bugger off.

The information about the "FE" model comes from the information on your threads and your FAQ, so you are the one that should be explaining why you are changing your mind now: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Distance+to+the+Sun

As for the information on the real Earth, there is a sun clock in a park near my office and there I can see exactly what the shadow of the sun should be at noon during the Equinox, and it is just a few degrees away from the zenith, exactly where it should be.

You are the one who has not explained why in your model the day is almost exactly 12 hours long during the Equinox. If you understood the diagram I gave it will be evident why in real science the days are 12 hours during the Equinox. When do you plan on explaining that part of your model?

Quote

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.

Proof? How do we know that the sun is directly over the equator at equinox, and not southward of it to give us our 12 hour days?

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

Bugger off.

Er, do you want us to go everywhere on earth at the same time on the same day to collect data? Someone did suggest a few weeks ago that we should all take readings on the equinox from wherever we were in the world. But only this guy did it.

Can't believe Tom wrote bugger off lol !

We must be stressing him out as his ivory tower crumbles around him.

Tom....when you guys have a definitive FET that you can all agree amongst yourselves, then you can start dismissing genuine attempts to be scientific. RET does have charts for positions of all the planets at any time of day/ year. Where are FET's charts? If I was in flat earth world and was sailing by the sun, where are the charts I'd need to navigate with? Worse still if I was sailing at night. Truth is there is NO astro mathematical data for FE world, but I can buy books full of charts and data for RE. So you bugger off and come back when you have some meaningful data that maps an FE world.

Geez good job the RE people got their crap together otherwise we'd all be lost in no time.

Does anyone think TB has ever travelled anywhere btw (outside of his imagination that is)?

Can't believe Tom wrote bugger off lol !

Does anyone think TB has ever travelled anywhere btw (outside of his imagination that is)?

MEGA ROTFLMAO!!!!

Apparently Tom spent some time at the Round Earth Society forums.

http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=160.msg4481#msg4481

Which is a repeat of this topic here...

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16948

Tom, if you think matter within matter has no weight and no gravity associated with it, I'm afraid you're not only being hypocritical (Flat Earthers don't believe the Earth has gravity) but also delusional.

I hope I never find out who you really are because if I do, it is my civic duty to have you committed to a mental institute.

I hope I never find out who you really are because if I do, it is my civic duty to have you committed to a mental institute.

Just give him a boat and send him on a mission to find the ice wall. He'll be gone forever!

OOPS! Tom, when you said "bugger off" we thought you meant me, trig, but it seems you were meaning yourself!

I will gladly bugger off and let you explain all those loose ends that are already mentioned in this thread. Unless, of course, you do not have anything useful to say.

Quote

The first thing to make really simple and clear is that during the Equinox everybody except those very close to the poles will see the Sun due East at dawn.

Proof? How do we know that the sun is directly over the equator at equinox, and not southward of it to give us our 12 hour days?

Because that is one of the defining properties of the equinox.  You do know what an equinox is, don't you?  Seriously, do you?  I really wonder about you sometimes, Tom.

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

You had a chance to collect your own data about 2 weeks ago.  Why didn't you?  Were you afraid of what you might find out?

You had a chance to collect your own data about 2 weeks ago.  Why didn't you?  Were you afraid of what you might find out?

Isn't that the reason why there is no basic astro mathematical data from FET? They haven't bothered in case it doesn't confirm their theories. It's also why they have no working map, no explanation for moon phases, earthshine, or just about every other gaping hole in their theories that we put to them.

And no..I don't believe TB does know what an equinox is.

How do we know that the sun is rising from exactly due east from every point on earth?

No Data?

The sun doesn't rise from exactly due east everywhere on earth. That's our major evidence for a RE - the seasons.

After many minutes of thought, I have come up with the explanation to this problem.

It is assumed in FE and RE that the equator is an equal distance from both the magnetic north pole, and the south.
However, if the 'equator' was actually much closer to the north pole than the south, we could account for this deviation.  At approximately 73 degrees north you encounter approximately 44 degrees declination.
To account for how much closer the 'equator' is to the north pole, we take 90+73/180.  That gives us about 90% north, instead of 50% north as it was assumed.
Note:  The sun is still above what was assumed to be the 'equator' but is merely a place 90% closer to the north pole than the south pole.
This could also provide an indication of how large the flat earth might actually be.

After many minutes of thought, I have come up with the explanation to this problem.

It is assumed in FE and RE that the equator is an equal distance from both the magnetic north pole, and the south.
However, if the 'equator' was actually much closer to the north pole than the south, we could account for this deviation.  At approximately 73 degrees north you encounter approximately 44 degrees declination.
To account for how much closer the 'equator' is to the north pole, we take 90+73/180.  That gives us about 90% north, instead of 50% north as it was assumed.
Note:  The sun is still above what was assumed to be the 'equator' but is merely a place 90% closer to the north pole than the south pole.
This could also provide an indication of how large the flat earth might actually be.

Like so many other FE solutions, this one does not quite solve the problem at hand and creates much worse difficulties than the original one.

This means that a flight from Bogota to Miami would have to be about 20 times longer than a flight from Bogota to Santiago de Chile! A humongous 70 hour plane travel! It would have to be made with about 3 stops to refuel!

And still, one of the very few cases where FE "theory" does correspond with reality, whereby the Sun passes exactly through the zenith at noon during the Equinox when seen from the Equator, is obliterated with your modification.

Even Tom Bishop accepted that fact and even used it in the Wiki, so you are robbing him of the title of "The FE'r with the least contact with reality".

So as long as there is no consensus about the most basic assumptions of a Flat Earth, the Flat Earth concept can never be disqualified. Way to make the entire FE premise unfalsifiable.  Exactly how many thousands of years must elapse before we have an accurate FE map? At a minimum, a consensus on whether or not Antarctica is an island or a wall should exist by now.

If you have no meaningful response to my points, just say so. My post specifically pointed out that there are several models, and that we'd need to know which one he was attempting to disprove. The existence of several models does not prevent any one model being disproved. You don't need a consensus to disprove a concept.

a concept.

And that's all FE will ever be.

After many minutes of thought, I have come up with the explanation to this problem.

Maybe this single phrase shows a lot of what is wrong with the FES. The few remaining "FE theorists" are looking for explanations, not for models that can be used for the Scientific Method.

Since you have all but abandoned the idea of making predictions based on your explanations, making up something "after many minutes of thought" is all you will ever do.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 05:16:34 AM

a concept.

And that's all FE will ever be.

Please stop making banal, moronic, content-void posts in Flat Earth Debate. Also, get a dictonary and look up the word 'concept'.

Quote from: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 11:17:26 AM

So as long as there is no consensus about the most basic assumptions of a Flat Earth, the Flat Earth concept can never be disqualified. Way to make the entire FE premise unfalsifiable.  Exactly how many thousands of years must elapse before we have an accurate FE map? At a minimum, a consensus on whether or not Antarctica is an island or a wall should exist by now.

If you have no meaningful response to my points, just say so. My post specifically pointed out that there are several models, and that we'd need to know which one he was attempting to disprove. The existence of several models does not prevent any one model being disproved. You don't need a consensus to disprove a concept.

To be rigorously scientific, we should test these results against all flat earth models, because if the earth really is flat, it should help determine which model is correct. If the earth is flat, inevitably one model's predictions will fit nicely with the observed data... won't it? 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 05:16:34 AM

Quote from: Deceiver on April 08, 2010, 11:17:26 AM

So as long as there is no consensus about the most basic assumptions of a Flat Earth, the Flat Earth concept can never be disqualified. Way to make the entire FE premise unfalsifiable.  Exactly how many thousands of years must elapse before we have an accurate FE map? At a minimum, a consensus on whether or not Antarctica is an island or a wall should exist by now.

If you have no meaningful response to my points, just say so. My post specifically pointed out that there are several models, and that we'd need to know which one he was attempting to disprove. The existence of several models does not prevent any one model being disproved. You don't need a consensus to disprove a concept.

To be rigorously scientific, we should test these results against all flat earth models, because if the earth really is flat, it should help determine which model is correct. If the earth is flat, inevitably one model's predictions will fit nicely with the observed data... won't it? 

For those who are not as subtle as Thermal Detonator, that means "stop playing bait and switch". Whatever model you, that means "Lord Wilmore" in this case, decide to propose, you must show how it predicts the same kind of results that have been posted and be prepared for some scrutiny into its power to predict other well known observed evidence.

After many minutes of thought, I have come up with the explanation to this problem.

It is assumed in FE and RE that the equator is an equal distance from both the magnetic north pole, and the south.
However, if the 'equator' was actually much closer to the north pole than the south, we could account for this deviation.  At approximately 73 degrees north you encounter approximately 44 degrees declination.
To account for how much closer the 'equator' is to the north pole, we take 90+73/180.  That gives us about 90% north, instead of 50% north as it was assumed.
Note:  The sun is still above what was assumed to be the 'equator' but is merely a place 90% closer to the north pole than the south pole.
This could also provide an indication of how large the flat earth might actually be.

But this is where astro mathematical data is needed. We know exactly where the sun/ moon and stars are in relation to any point on the earth at any time of day/ year. That's easily obeserved and measured. FE's problem is making those numbers fit with an FET. It should be very easy for example to make a 2D FE map, far easier than making a RE map for example - but they can't do it because no matter how they measure things it will never equate to a flat earth. As I said earlier, where are the charts of observed data for FE? There's nothing.

After many minutes of thought, I have come up with the explanation to this problem.

It is assumed in FE and RE that the equator is an equal distance from both the magnetic north pole, and the south.
However, if the 'equator' was actually much closer to the north pole than the south, we could account for this deviation.  At approximately 73 degrees north you encounter approximately 44 degrees declination.
To account for how much closer the 'equator' is to the north pole, we take 90+73/180.  That gives us about 90% north, instead of 50% north as it was assumed.
Note:  The sun is still above what was assumed to be the 'equator' but is merely a place 90% closer to the north pole than the south pole.
This could also provide an indication of how large the flat earth might actually be.

... no.

Like so many other FE solutions, this one does not quite solve the problem at hand and creates much worse difficulties than the original one.

This means that a flight from Bogota to Miami would have to be about 20 times longer than a flight from Bogota to Santiago de Chile! A humongous 70 hour plane travel! It would have to be made with about 3 stops to refuel!

And still, one of the very few cases where FE "theory" does correspond with reality, whereby the Sun passes exactly through the zenith at noon during the Equinox when seen from the Equator, is obliterated with your modification.

Even Tom Bishop accepted that fact and even used it in the Wiki, so you are robbing him of the title of "The FE'r with the least contact with reality".

Yes, this is possibly the most valid point of contention presented to FET.  However, this assumption is based on a uniform space-time assumption.
I don't believe space time is uniform, which could also account for the fact that the sun appears to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To everyone else:
The sun would still be over what is presently recognized as the equator.  However, the south pole would not be the same distance from the equator as the north pole.  I'll demonstrate:
S....................E....N

Is there any reason declination doesn't change uniformly (inversely) after you cross the equator in relation to the change in the northern hemisphere?
FE'er:  "The Earth looks flat!"
RE'er:  "Things can be different than they appear."

RE'er:  "Space time appears to be uniform on the local level."
FE'er:  "Things can be different than they appear."