Why would 117 days without sun be longer than 112 days at a slightly higher northern latitude in Norway? Cast your mind back to the Equation of Time discussions some months ago. You were asserting (correctly) that the Earth is closest to the Sun near the southern solstice, and (incorrectly) that the southern hemisphere should be broiling. Remember that? Well, the reply was (also correctly) that, because the Earth is closest to the Sun then, it's also moving fastest in its orbit at the same time, so (again correctly) the southern summer is slightly shorter than the northern one. Remember?
It would be better for you to skip that part (The equation of time), and you know why. Do i have to remind you? Because you asked for it : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935
Ah, yes. If you read the follow-up posts, you can see where your points are shown to be wrong, or were just abandoned. Why do you want people to look at this old stuff? It makes you look bad. Are you hoping they'll just look at the post you think is clever and insightful without bothering to look at the the follow-up that shows exactly where it's wrong?
"Every year the Sun is as long south of the Equator as he is north[citation needed];
You say this. Doing so doesn't make it true.
Can you go to a reliable source for the dates of a few March and September equinoxes in succession and determine the number of days between each, then report back here? Are the numbers of days between the equinoxes equal? If you would be so kind, please provide the source for the information (and whether it was cross-checked with other sources if you're suspicious), the dates of each equinox (and time in UTC if available), and the number of days between succeeding equinoxes. I'll wait for your answer. If you have Microsoft Excel available, it's
really good at things like this; type in the dates (and times if you have them) in a format Excel recognizes as a date (and time), then subtract the earlier one from the later and display the result as a number - you will get the number of days (and fraction of a day, if you provided times) as the result! Easier and less error-prone than counting days!
and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being in consequence of the fact stated, -far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."
<More incorrect stuff from Rowbotham> http://i.imgur.com/fVcXqlu.jpg
The basic premise of the text in the link is that some physical characteristics of New Zealand and England should be equivalent since they are at about the same latitudes in opposite hemispheres. The text claims that, but it's is wrong. All of England is further from the Equator than The most southerly points of the major islands of New Zealand. No part of the main islands of New Zealand, or even Stewart Island, are as far south as 50° South Latitude. Very little of England is less than 50° North Latitude, and the parts that are are just barely less than 50° N. As usual, Mr. Rowbotham is either lying or simply mistaken. We'll probably never know which of these is right, but at this point it hardly matters. What does matter is that you cannot rely on
anything he says as fact.
Anecdotal reports like those quoted here are of little to no value, even if they
were factually correct. Rowbotham's florid language claims that New Zealand receives
significantly less sunlight over the year than England does. Do you have any evidence to back that up? If so, let's see it. If not, why do you believe the claim?
Rowbotham asks "What can cause the twilight in New Zealand to be much more sudden, or the nights so much colder than England?" There are no details about
how much is "much more sudden", so this statement is of little value. The North Island extends as far north as 34° South latitude, significantly closer to the Equator than England is, despite Rowbotham's claims otherwise. Twilight is shorter at lower latitude, so no surprise there. There is no quantitative data about how much shorter the twilight is in New Zealand, or where this observation is made, just the usual hand waving.
How much colder are the nights? Where are the comparisons being made? Parts of New Zealand are quite mountainous - far more than England, and it's well known that temperatures are lower at higher elevations, and well understood why. Probably more pertinent is the fact that climate is not dependent only on latitude; the real world is far more interesting than that. England is warmed by the Gulf Stream (a large-scale ocean current carrying warm, tropical, water northward); no warm current of that scale exists in the southern hemisphere. New Zealand is cooled by the Antarctic Current (a large-scale ocean current that circulates cold polar waters to lower latitudes), similarly absent from the Northern Hemisphere. This is just more anecdotal blather.
And now, something very interesting:
Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."
If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!
What's really interesting is how you manage to misunderstand or misrepresent the obvious.
Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described. Your "Datum Line" is spurious, too. What do you think it represents in the real world?
Meaningful datums are more or less concentric with sea level, so your 5120-meter assertion is simply a misconception on your part. A level plain has a constant elevation above sea level or similar equipotential datum (hint: these are curved); it's not a straight line or geometric plane (note the different spelling).
Don't you ever read and try to understand
any responses to your posts? It appears not. Maybe someone does, so all is not lost even if you are.
Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?
I really can't comprehend why you continue to struggle with this. You must
want to misunderstand, but I can't comprehend why. Does it make you feel empowered or something to argue contrary to obvious fact?
On top of that:
http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg
The "Datum Horizontal Line" is explained in the text as a constant elevation 26 feet below the [mean] level of the Mediterranean. Thus it's a constant 26 feet (approximately) below the surface of the water in the Suez Canal since the mean level of the surface of the Red Sea is within half a foot of the Med. Since the datum is a constant distance from sea level and sea level follows the curvature of the Earth, the datum line is also curved and concentric with sea level. This is pretty basic stuff. The text is insisting that this datum is a straight line in real life and arriving at a conclusion based on that assumption. The assumption is wrong, so the conclusion is wrong. This reads like more of Mr. Rowbotham's nonsense, so no surprise there.