Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place

Quote from: rottingroom on September 01, 2013, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2013, 10:07:03 AM

How did this navigational ship confirm that the latitudes it was at were correct? Did they study Polaris at any time? Looking at GPS is not verification that the latitude lines are correct, or that they are an equidistant distance apart.

Because we know where Hawaii is and we know where San Deigo is.

If you have the correct lat and long at the beginning and end of the trip (calibration) then it is working correctly.

The GPS unit is using a Round Earth model. The GPS uses a model that successfully navigates with 100% success. Therefore, the GPS unit is using the correct model.

It is possible to put meaningless grid coordinates over a map and navigate to any destination.  I can take a map of my city and label the latitude lines AA, AB, AC, etc, and use the coordinates to navigate between any points. But the mere fact that I am able to use these meaningless designations to navigate does not put meaning behind these designations.

The matter in this discussion is not that a GPS or map can tell you that you are at 60 degrees North, the matter is whether the reading of 60 degrees North is a correct representation of reality, and actually means anything in the real world.

Okay but this GPS unit doesn't just work for my trip from San Diego to Hawaii. It works for everyone, all over the place. 60 degrees north is a human interpretation of reality, and so is the definition of a mile or a kilometer. The Earth doesn't care what we call our units nor what values we apply to those units. The model is a human construct that just has to fit. In order for it to fit some things must be correct and the shape and size of the Earth are a couple of them.

For instance lets say you have to ask an alien species that doesn't have feet (they have evolved wheels) to make human socks. If you didn't describe what a foot is to them with some fairly precise measurements then they wouldn't be able to make the correct model to build the correct socks. They would be likely to just go ahead and make wheel socks and they wouldn't fit on human feet.

incorrect model of earth = incorrect navigation
incorrect model of socks = socks that don't fit

I really enjoyed my sock example but allow me to use another that is more to the point.

Suppose you work for me at company that makes globes and I have asked you to make globe covers that would fit precisely around the globe. The one stipulation is that you don't get to see the globe yourself and that you have to use my measurements in order to make the correct cover.

Despite the fact that I am 100% certain that the shape of the globes is a sphere you continue with the task without accepting the fact that the globes are spherical and insist to yourself that it is a flat plane and even though I gave you measurements of the globe including the circumference and diameter you ignore those measurements and proceed anyway.

You finish building the cover and give it to me and I check to see if it fits on the globe. It turns out it doesn't so I ask you do try it again but once again you try to do the task without using my specifications and you make more incorrect covers. This happens over and over again and out of frustration you finally decide to use my measurements and voila, we have a cover that fits.

Now Tom, I understand that you think you can put a grid anywhere and it would work but this is only true on a flat plane but not true on a sphere. If it is a sphere (globe) then the models (globe covers) that GPS units use have to be the correct size and shape to fit on the Earth. So since they are navigating us correctly, then the models are correct.

Flat Earth Model on a Planar Earth = correct navigation (GPS does not use this)
Flat Earth Model on a Globular Earth = incorrect navigation (GPS does not use this)
Round Earth Model on a Planar Earth = incorrect navigation (GPS does not use this)
Round Earth Model on a Globular Earth = correct navigation (GPS DOES use this)


Granted, this globe company example isn't quite how it chronologically happened on Earth.  In the example, I gave you measurements that I knew to be correct and you eventually made the correct cover (model) once you used the measurements. On Earth there have been many theories about its shape and size. We now have a GPS units and the model that was applied to them is the round earth model. I have shown that the only way GPS units that use a round earth model can be correct is if the model is correct.

You are correct that there is a difference in area, but your appeal to popularity that people are actually checking this area for verification falls flat. Most people travel very short distances, which is inapplicable for verification of a map.

The people who do travel long distances do not travel in straight lines. If you've looked at the path of a road trip across a continent, you will see many twists and turns, looking like crooked paths across the nation. The same is seen with air and ship travel. The people who circumnavigated the world did not do so in straight lines.

For example, Ferdinand Megellan is said to have circumnavigated the world via ship, but his path looks as so:



 This man claims to have circumnavigated the world by air, but his actual path looks as so:



Virtually no one would fly around the world on the same latitude due to lack of airports and pit stops. There is also an issue of gaining permission to enter foreign airspace.

You are correct that there is a difference in area, but your appeal to popularity that people are constantly checking this area falls flat. Most people travel very short distances, which is inapplicable for verification of a map.

The people who do travel long distances do not travel in straight lines. If you've looked at the path of a road trip across a continent, you will see many twists and turns, looking like crooked paths across the nation. The same is seen with air and ship travel. The people who circumnavigated the world did not do so in straight lines.

For example, Ferdinand Megellan is said to have circumnavigated the world via ship, but his path looks as so:



 This man claims to have circumnavigated the world by air, but his actual path looks as so:



Virtually no one would fly around the world on the same latitude due to lack of airports and pit stops. There is also an issue of gaining permission to enter foreign airspace.

This is vaguely related to what we are talking about. What is your point?

This is vaguely related to what we are talking about. What is your point?

The point is that your argument that people are accurately measuring distances, enough to prove that the earth is a globe, is fallacious.

I didn't say anything about accurately measuring distances. I used an example of having the correct measurements to make globe covers but my final point was:

Granted, this globe company example isn't quite how it chronologically happened on Earth.  In the example, I gave you measurements that I knew to be correct and you eventually made the correct cover (model) once you used the measurements. On Earth there have been many theories about its shape and size. We now have a GPS units and the model that was applied to them is the round earth model. I have shown that the only way GPS units that use a round earth model can be correct is if the model is correct.

So let me spell that out for you...

In the globe cover making example:

1. I know the globes are round.
2. I give you precise measurements.
3. You eventually make the correct globes when you use the correct covers (thanks to my measurements).
C: Round objects need precise models to work.

In the history of mankind:

1. Many theories are made about earths shape and size.
2. Eventually most people believe earth is round.
3. GPS units are invented and are configured to use a round earth model.
4. GPS accurately uses precise models to navigate earth.
C. The earth must be round.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but when I flew from Narrabri to Sale with my brother, we were heading pretty much due south, the day was quite still, and we covered 1 degree of latitude every 30 minutes (we were at a true airspeed of 120kts, and 1 degree of latitude is equal to 60 nautical miles), so you could say we measured and confirmed the distances. We weren't out to do that specifically, it was just a neat side-note to keep our minds active during the flight.

How did you confirm that you were passing 1 degree every 30 minutes, by looking at a gps?

How did you confirm that you were passing 1 degree every 30 minutes, by looking at a gps?

No, we didn't have a GPS. We were navigating the old fashioned way, with map, clock, and compass. Now, before you go asking a whole lot of questions, I suggest you take the time to familiarise yourself with aeronautical navigation, you'll save me and everyone else a lot of annoyance.

All of this is pretty pointless anyway, as the sun still sets in the wrong place according to either FE model, regardless of how much distance there is between lines of latitude.

Back on topic properly: shortly we will have another equinox, during which the sun will transition from being directly overhead locations North of the equator to being directly overhead locations South of the equator. From my point of view (verified at the last equinox, and I will verify again this time around), the sun will rise due East, at midday it will be 30° North of directly overhead (which corresponds to my latitude of 30°South), and will set due West.

- Assuming a round earth, this makes perfect sense and should require no further explanation.
- Assuming a mono-poled flat earth, the sun should be much further North when it rises and sets (or South, if the South pole were ever used as the centre point of a FE model).
- Assuming a bi-polar FE model, the sun should rise well North of East, and set well South of East.

Any questions? Any rebuttals? Any actual logical answers? I await the response of a FE advocate!

No, we didn't have a GPS. We were navigating the old fashioned way, with map, clock, and compass.

How would you find your latitude with those tools?

Quote from: Scintific Method on September 01, 2013, 04:57:56 PM

No, we didn't have a GPS. We were navigating the old fashioned way, with map, clock, and compass.

How would you find your latitude with those tools?

You've never navigated a light aircraft, have you Tom? The map had latitude lines marked on it, as well as sufficient landmarks to identify your location visually.

All of this has been lovely, but entirely off-topic. Would you care to address my on-topic post? Here it is again, in case you missed it:

Back on topic properly: shortly we will have another equinox, during which the sun will transition from being directly overhead locations North of the equator to being directly overhead locations South of the equator. From my point of view (verified at the last equinox, and I will verify again this time around), the sun will rise due East, at midday it will be 30° North of directly overhead (which corresponds to my latitude of 30°South), and will set due West.

- Assuming a round earth, this makes perfect sense and should require no further explanation.
- Assuming a mono-poled flat earth, the sun should be much further North when it rises and sets (or South, if the South pole were ever used as the centre point of a FE model).
- Assuming a bi-polar FE model, the sun should rise well North of East, and set well South of East.

Any questions? Any rebuttals? Any actual logical answers? I await the response of a FE advocate!

Talking about latitude, latitude is by definition (in RE view at least) the angular distance of a place north or south of the earth's equator, usually expressed in degrees and minutes. What does it mean in flat earth model? Does it even make sense to have latitude at all?

Talking about latitude, latitude is by definition (in RE view at least) the angular distance of a place north or south of the earth's equator, usually expressed in degrees and minutes. What does it mean in flat earth model? Does it even make sense to have latitude at all?

Yeah, it does, though really only for the mono-polar model. Think of polar coordinates, with longitude being theta and latitude being r.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 01, 2013, 11:41:35 PM

Talking about latitude, latitude is by definition (in RE view at least) the angular distance of a place north or south of the earth's equator, usually expressed in degrees and minutes. What does it mean in flat earth model? Does it even make sense to have latitude at all?

Yeah, it does, though really only for the mono-polar model. Think of polar coordinates, with longitude being theta and latitude being r.

Longitude may still make sense in flat earth, but latitude as angular distance? Where is the centre of this angle?

Huh. Just noticed that this giant Red Herring is just that--a giant Red Herring.

In the equation to find the angle at which the sun will rise/set, the distance between degrees of latitude doesn't matter. It cancels itself out.

It makes sense if you think about it. The angles would be the same if each degree were only 1 km as if each degree were a million kilometers. The thing that matters in that equation is the ratio of the sun's distance from the north pole to your distance from the north pole--a ratio that's identical no matter how big each degree of latitude is.

So, Tom, care to reply to the results?

Formal experiment: Sunrise 31 August 2013 from Portland, Oregon.

FE Prediction: 54.06° east of north
RE Prediction: 77.38° east of north

Actual sunrise location: 85° east of north ± 7°

Deviation from FE Prediction: 31° ± 7° (31% - 41% error)
Deviation from RE Prediction: 08° ± 7° (01% - 16% error)

Planned methods of measurement:

• With a compass measure the direction of the shadow of a vertical spirit level. Subtract 180° from the result
• Point a yardstick compass at the rising sun observing from a low angle--this should make the yardstick accurate to within a few degrees. With a compass measure the direction of the yardstick Record the compass reading

PS C'mon, guys, I don't post my equations to make myself feel superior. I'm counting on you to check stuff like this! :}

PPS This equinox is a brilliant time to measure sunrise and sunset directions. FE predictions that day can be calculated fairly simply:

Did everybody miss this??

Back on topic properly: shortly we will have another equinox, during which the sun will transition from being directly overhead locations North of the equator to being directly overhead locations South of the equator. From my point of view (verified at the last equinox, and I will verify again this time around), the sun will rise due East, at midday it will be 30° North of directly overhead (which corresponds to my latitude of 30°South), and will set due West.

- Assuming a round earth, this makes perfect sense and should require no further explanation.
- Assuming a mono-poled flat earth, the sun should be much further North when it rises and sets (or South, if the South pole were ever used as the centre point of a FE model).
- Assuming a bi-polar FE model, the sun should rise well North of East, and set well South of East.

Any questions? Any rebuttals? Any actual logical answers? I await the response of a FE advocate!

@Alex

I already tried to figure out earlier how to calculate it using RE model. Getting accurate result would require a good understanding of spherical geometry involving some not easy to find parameters such as how the Earth axis is currently tilted in relation to the Sun at that time and what latitude currently you are.

For FE model it is even worse. I don't even know which shape the Earth supposed to be and how Sun is supposed to orbit above it.

@Alex

I already tried to figure out earlier how to calculate it using RE model. Getting accurate result would require a good understanding of spherical geometry involving some not easy to find parameters such as how the Earth axis is currently tilted in relation to the Sun at that time and what latitude currently you are.

For FE model it is even worse. I don't even know which shape the Earth supposed to be and how Sun is supposed to orbit above it.

Yeah, I don't know enough spherical geometry to do the maths. I used Google Earth, creating a ruler object from me to the sun. That tells you the bearing of the line.

As for an FE model, it's just polar geometry. Check out my post about the equation to see how I did it.

---

[/hr]

Okay, there are a lot of people asking a lot of questions on this thread. I'd like to trim this down to a single one until it's answered then move on to the next et cetera. Not to be selfish or anything, but this whole Red Herring started from my official sunrise experiment.

The equinox thing is a brilliant idea, but maybe it should have its own thread so it can be discussed proper.

Same with a coordinate system on a flat Earth.

Thanks!

The problem with FE is that there are at least two kinds of map and both got its own issues with Sun orbit. The north pole map cannot explain how the south pole can see the Sun 24 hour when Sun is above the southern hemisphere while the bipolar version doesn't even have any explanation on how Sun orbits above the earth. So basically I don't think flat earther can predict anything using their model.

The problem with FE is that there are at least two kinds of map and both got its own issues with Sun orbit. The north pole map cannot explain how the south pole can see the Sun 24 hour when Sun is above the southern hemisphere while the bipolar version doesn't even have any explanation on how Sun orbits above the earth. So basically I don't think flat earther can predict anything using their model.

The method behind the sun's orbit doesn't matter. I'm assuming it works and doing the maths from there. The maths themselves aren't that complicated, so you can calculate what both FE models would predict. Now, will an FE advocate (Tom?) acknowledge that experimental observations show their models to be bunk?

I doubt you'll get anyone, the FET models that are used obviously don't match up with observation. It's why the arguments quickly get dragged down the "who measured x" argument as the alternative is to discuss the actual model.