SMOKING GUN

  • 359 Replies
  • 7801 Views
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2019, 06:40:05 PM »

The sun is on the ecliptic right where it's supposed to be. If it were off by even a little, astronomers all over the world would notice, and eclipse predictions would not work in a noticeable way.

Sorry, but without real and reliable data that verifies them, these stories are nothing more than poppycock.

Wouldn't it be far-fetched to presume that all these INUIT people hallucinate?

"...Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

For how much the sun has to shift in order to produce such result (allowing Inuit People 1 extra hour of day-light for hunting)?

The answer is : one half of a degree!!!

For example :

At December 8th at Latitude 67, 46 N the Sun rises at 13 h 07 min and sets at 14 h 29 min (the sun is above the horizon for 1 h 21 min)
At December 8th at Latitude 67, 10 N the Sun rises at 12 h 46 min and sets at 15 h 04 min (the sun is above the horizon for 2 h 18 min)

If scientists were aware (which they certainly are) of this 0,5 degrees shift of the sun all they would have to do is to adjust their eclipse-calculations for these 0,5 degrees change, supposing that no change affected the Moon.
And what has all that to do with your "SMOKING GUN"?
Once again, just for you :
What we call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solarsystem” because precession is actually due to the motion of the WHOLE stellatum (AS ENTIRETY) itself. In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun).

If we lived in a heliocentric system then the same amount of the displacement of the stars should match the same amount of the displacement of the sun.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 06:42:02 PM by cikljamas »

*

Stash

  • 1354
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2019, 06:59:17 PM »

The sun is on the ecliptic right where it's supposed to be. If it were off by even a little, astronomers all over the world would notice, and eclipse predictions would not work in a noticeable way.

Sorry, but without real and reliable data that verifies them, these stories are nothing more than poppycock.

Wouldn't it be far-fetched to presume that all these INUIT people hallucinate?

"...Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

The quote is from a review of a documentary film about what Inuit elders are noticing in their environment regarding climate change, "Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change", by acclaimed Nunavut filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/new-documentary-recounts-bizarre-climate-changes-seen-by-inuit-elders/article1215305/

The next paragraph after the one you cite above is:

"The scientific explanation is that the warming Arctic air is causing temperature inversions, which in turn cause the light of the sunset to refract so that the sun appears to be setting a few kilometres off-kilter. 'There is so much garbage in the air, it's refraction that's causing our elders to think our world has tilted,' Kunuk says."

So before you go running off quote mining Inuit elders to support your case, put some context around your quotes and provide the origin of the citation. You really need to reel in the misuse of quotes and documentation. It's gotten completely out of hand and verging on disingenuous though I think it's more a matter of you chasing keywords that seem to bolster your argument when they actually don't.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #62 on: March 26, 2019, 07:27:57 PM »

The sun is on the ecliptic right where it's supposed to be. If it were off by even a little, astronomers all over the world would notice, and eclipse predictions would not work in a noticeable way.

Sorry, but without real and reliable data that verifies them, these stories are nothing more than poppycock.

Wouldn't it be far-fetched to presume that all these INUIT people hallucinate?

Hallucinations are not necessary. Those stories could be merely wrong.

Quote
<unattributed quote>

For how much the sun has to shift in order to produce such result (allowing Inuit People 1 extra hour of day-light for hunting)?

The answer is : one half of a degree!!!

A shift in the sun's position of one-half degree would be huge! Why has no one else noticed this? Here's the answer: it hasn't been noticed because it doesn't exist.

Quote
If scientists were aware (which they certainly are) of this 0,5 degrees shift of the sun all they would have to do is to adjust their eclipse-calculations for these 0,5 degrees change, supposing that no change affected the Moon.

Yet they don't make such adjustments and the calculations still work.

You have widespread precise measurements on one hand and an anecdotal edge case on the other, that, if it's even true, involves other phenomena.

So you nave no "SMOKING GUN" and now no"FROZEN GUN". Are you ready to move to another topic and make it a trifecta?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #63 on: March 26, 2019, 07:31:55 PM »
And what has all that to do with your "SMOKING GUN"?
Once again, just for you :
What we call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solarsystem” because precession is actually due to the motion of the WHOLE stellatum (AS ENTIRETY) itself.
No, the "precession of the equinoxes" is due to only the slow change in the direction of the earth's axis of rotation. The solar system as a whole has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: cikljamas
In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun).
Any "wobbling on the axis" is extremely small and due to movements of masses of water or earth.
The "precession of the equinoxes" is the slow movement the direction of the axis just like a spinning top precesses on its axis.

By the way, I hope you realise that the Geocentric Solar System is completely impossible if Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation are true.
And virtually all modern mechanical and civil engineering depends on those laws.

So please disprove that gravitation does not behave as .
Then disprove that:
Quote
In an inertial frame of reference, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant.)

Maybe you could read this, Geocentrism Disproved: Ken Cole vs. Robert Sungenis: Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism: How Newton's laws prove that the earth orbits the sun by Ken Cole
Or even, The University of Texas, Astronomy - : Kepler, Newton, and laws of motion.

Then try to foist your Geocentric Hypothesis on us!

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #64 on: March 26, 2019, 11:48:47 PM »
What we call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solarsystem” because precession is actually due to the motion of the WHOLE stellatum (AS ENTIRETY) itself. In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun).

I'll take you running off onto yet another topic another admission of complete defeat.

You still don't seem to understand.
You wouldn't expect a difference between GC and HC.
With GC the entire celestial sphere moves. This ties in the sun with the other stars as the sun moves along the celestial sphere.
With HC, the axis of rotation of Earth changes direction. This also moves the sun with the stars.
You would expect the exact same results for both.

The reason they seem to move independently is because the sun already traces a path along the celestial sphere and we set our date based upon it.
But don't worry, they do. It has even caused the Zodiac to not be aligned. For example, the current "sign" is Aries, but based upon the current position of the sun and stars we should actually be in Pisces.
But if you go based upon the sidereal zodiac, it's fine.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2019, 04:58:36 AM »
What we call precession only occurs relative to the fixed stars and objects “outside the solarsystem” because precession is actually due to the motion of the WHOLE stellatum (AS ENTIRETY) itself. In geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of the motion of the sun, which is not the case in the heliocentric universe within which the motion of the earth (wobbling on her axis) among the motionless stars and around the motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun).

You still don't seem to understand.
You wouldn't expect a difference between GC and HC.
With GC the entire celestial sphere moves. This ties in the sun with the other stars as the sun moves along the celestial sphere.
With HC, the axis of rotation of Earth changes direction. This also moves the sun with the stars.
You would expect the exact same results for both.


You are in agreement (on this issue) with dr Sungenis (famous geocentrist), but you are both wrong.
If dr Sungenis was right then the Sun (and the whole Solar System) would become (sooner or later) locked on the celestial equator (a.k.a. Earth's equator) instead of freely going up and down along the ecliptic in the course of one year, and the Moon would become locked too on the celestial equator, instead of freely going up and down along the ecliptic (and eve further for few degrees) in the course of one month.
Furthermore, Solar System wouldn't lag behind the stars for 3 min 56 sec, the Moon wouldn't lag by about 50 min every day behind the Sun, planets wouldn't perform retrograde motions, wouldn't rotate in the opposite directions and with so different speeds, everything would (sooner or later (sooner sooner than later)) come to a halt (so to speak), everything (except the very center of the universe (the earth)) would rotate around the very center of the universe in unison (speed) and aligned with the celestial equator. There would be no free motion of anything up and down along the ecliptic.

How it works (universe mechanics), we don't know, and it takes a lot of courage and honesty to admit it (that we don't know), but if you want to be honest person you have to make that leap (of reason, not of faith) and admit that you don't know something, because when you admit that you don't know something (that you don't know) then everything else that you know worth double, and your credibility reaches much higher level.   

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #66 on: March 27, 2019, 05:01:25 AM »
You have widespread precise measurements on one hand and an anecdotal edge case on the other, that, if it's even true, involves other phenomena.
So, refraction is your only excuse?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #67 on: March 27, 2019, 09:27:19 AM »
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS :



AND THIS IS HOW IT IS TODAY :




Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #68 on: March 27, 2019, 10:06:25 AM »
You have widespread precise measurements on one hand and an anecdotal edge case on the other, that, if it's even true, involves other phenomena.
So, refraction is your only excuse?

No. Refraction is not the only explanation.

First things first... is there any data that confirms the claimed changes? Stories and lore are not data.

When reports like

Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

conflict with oft-repeated careful measurements, there is no reason to elevate the anecdotal evidence alone to the same level as real measurements. Period. If there is real data that indicates that the anecdotes are factual, or partly factual, then the order of business is to find out why these observations don't match what is expected based on other reliable data. But first you have to determine whether there is any basis in fact, otherwise, further investigation is largely pointless.

There is no evidence that the reports from "each community" doesn't stem from the same original source, which may simply be in error. In fact, this seems fairly likely. That's the problem with relying solely on lore, especially in defiance of data.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #69 on: March 27, 2019, 10:19:39 AM »
You have widespread precise measurements on one hand and an anecdotal edge case on the other, that, if it's even true, involves other phenomena.
So, refraction is your only excuse?

No. Refraction is not the only explanation.

First things first... is there any data that confirms the claimed changes? Stories and lore are not data.

When reports like

Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

conflict with oft-repeated careful measurements, there is no reason to elevate the anecdotal evidence alone to the same level as real measurements. Period. If there is real data that indicates that the anecdotes are factual, or partly factual, then the order of business is to find out why these observations don't match what is expected based on other reliable data. But first you have to determine whether there is any basis in fact, otherwise, further investigation is largely pointless.

There is no evidence that the reports from "each community" doesn't stem from the same original source, which may simply be in error. In fact, this seems fairly likely. That's the problem with relying solely on lore, especially in defiance of data.
Or maybe we should rather talk about your defiance of data which i have provided for you in my previous post (Haparanda case)?

You simply can't reasonably and justifiably discard authenticity of the personal testimonies like this one :

Pieter van den broek
It is realy true. Always around Christmas days,  sun  is not shining in our livingroom  for six weeks beceause it is blocked by the roof of the houses in our backside. (We alway's notice when the sun  shines in our living room it is nice warmth) Today, 22-12-2018, we see the sun shining in our living room, partely above the rooftops.
So the story is true, or the houses in the front of my house have gone  down.



This guy is absolutely unbiased, since he left his comment below the video which has nothing to do with our discussion or anything alike...

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2019, 12:10:39 PM »
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS :

When? According to whom?

Quote
AND THIS IS HOW IT IS TODAY :

That looks like it's from www.timeanddate.com. Is it? Why don't you cite your sources?

June Solstice (Summer Solstice) is on Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:54 pm in Haparanda Hamn. In terms of daylight, this day is 21 hours, 1 minute longer than on December Solstice.

From the same source, on the December solstice, sunrise is 9:53 am and sunset is 12:52 pm, giving a length of day that is one minute less than three hours.

Do you understand why, according to what I presume is your source here, day on the June solstice is 21 hours, not 24 hours, longer than it is on the December solstice at Haparanda Hamn, that is, you don't get a corresponding day at the December solstice where the sun doesn't rise at all? I do. Since it's outside the Arctic circle, based purely on geometry and the center of the sun it shouldn't have a midnight sun at all, but it does, just barely, because of refraction (gasp!) and the roughly 1/4° apparent radius of the sun.

So what's your source for what appears to be a travelogue, and what are those times based on?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2019, 01:02:22 PM »
You have widespread precise measurements on one hand and an anecdotal edge case on the other, that, if it's even true, involves other phenomena.
So, refraction is your only excuse?

No. Refraction is not the only explanation.

First things first... is there any data that confirms the claimed changes? Stories and lore are not data.

When reports like

Still, the Inuit insist they see changes in the sun's course and the position of the stars in the night sky. "These elders, when they were growing up, they were told to go out every morning, before having anything to eat. They were told to go out at the age of 5 every morning to observe the weather," Kunuk says. "So when they started talking about the sun and the sunset, I was puzzled too. Everywhere I went, each community, I was getting the same answer: The sun does not settle where it used to. I mean, it [causes]alarm."

conflict with oft-repeated careful measurements, there is no reason to elevate the anecdotal evidence alone to the same level as real measurements. Period. If there is real data that indicates that the anecdotes are factual, or partly factual, then the order of business is to find out why these observations don't match what is expected based on other reliable data. But first you have to determine whether there is any basis in fact, otherwise, further investigation is largely pointless.

There is no evidence that the reports from "each community" doesn't stem from the same original source, which may simply be in error. In fact, this seems fairly likely. That's the problem with relying solely on lore, especially in defiance of data.
Or maybe we should rather talk about your defiance of data which i have provided for you in my previous post (Haparanda case)?

I asked for further information about your Haparanda report in the reply above.

Quote
You simply can't reasonably and justifiably discard authenticity of the personal testimonies like this one :

Pieter van den broek
It is realy true. Always around Christmas days,  sun  is not shining in our livingroom  for six weeks beceause it is blocked by the roof of the houses in our backside. (We alway's notice when the sun  shines in our living room it is nice warmth) Today, 22-12-2018, we see the sun shining in our living room, partely above the rooftops.
So the story is true, or the houses in the front of my house have gone  down.



This guy is absolutely unbiased, since he left his comment below the video which has nothing to do with our discussion or anything alike...

In the three weeks before and after the December solstice (the writer describes a six-week span of time when the sun is so low it's obscured) the declination of the sun changes by 1.7 degrees! If the sun were "off course" by almost 2° it would be obvious worldwide. Where are all of the other reports?

His comment also suggests (but it's hard to tell for sure) that this happened from one year to the next, or over a small number of years. Yet predictions made well over a decade ago work perfectly for eclipses happening now and recently, and this has been true for a long time. It isn't a matter of the moon being "off" by a similar amount, either, because long-range predictions of other occultations by the moon (where the moon passes in front of stars or other more distant celestial objects) are reliable as well.

You're presenting what is called anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily wrong, but when it appears to contradict reliable and verifiable data, it usually* is. Again, you cite an example that would have huge effects that otherwise appear to have gone completely unnoticed.

I'm interested to see more about the source for your Haparanda article.

* "Usually" is used here because sometimes what appears to be a contradiction is not really a contradiction (because of effects that may not be properly accounted for, like refraction as an example).
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2019, 01:56:30 PM »
You are in agreement (on this issue) with dr Sungenis (famous geocentrist), but you are both wrong.
No, I'm not in agreement with him, unless by "on this issue" you mean that you get the same results for GC and HC in this case.
He is wrong because he thinks Earth is stationary. You are yet to show I am wrong.

If dr Sungenis was right then the Sun (and the whole Solar System) would become (sooner or later) locked on the celestial equator
Why?

everything would (sooner or later (sooner sooner than later)) come to a halt
No, that sure seems to be your claim where you ignore inertia, not mine.

How it works (universe mechanics), we don't know
We have a very good idea of how most of it works. It is based upon gravity and inertia.
Sure, we don't know the ultimate reason of why, but that applies to everything.

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2019, 03:03:22 PM »
How it works (universe mechanics), we don't know, and it takes a lot of courage and honesty to admit it (that we don't know), but if you want to be honest person you have to make that leap (of reason, not of faith) and admit that you don't know something, because when you admit that you don't know something (that you don't know) then everything else that you know worth double, and your credibility reaches much higher level.

Cikljamas, I keep waiting for some explanation of how your Geocentric Universe could work and the best you seem to offer is: "How it works (universe mechanics), we don't know".

Now the early astronomers, including Ptolemy, Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler also did not have any mechanism or theory to explain why the planets moved in the way they did.

All they, including Kepler, did was to try to fit these to some regular geometric pattern.
Up to and including Copernicus all were constrained by the ancient ideas of the perfection of the heavens demanding pattern constructed from perfect circles.
As a result, the Copernican heliocentric model was little, if any, better than the Ptolemaic geocentric one.

It was not till Kepler finally achieved a far better, though not perfect, match to Tycho Brahe's observations with elliptical orbits.
But Kepler still had no idea why these elliptical planetary orbits fitted so well. His work was still getting some geometric pattern that fitted the observed motion.

It wasn't to after Galilee Galileo's, Robert Hooke's and Isaac Newton's work that led to Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation that a reason for Kepler's elliptical orbits was found.

But Kepler's Laws are only applicable to a two-bodied system with a small body (a planet) orbiting a large body (the Sun).
The Sun's mass is, however, so large compared to the total of all the other objects in the solar system that the Kepler's laws fitted well for the known inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

It would be incorrect to say that the Solar system is Kepler's system but it does fit Newton's Laws very closely with the only measurable difference being a slight excess in the precession of Mercury's orbit.

Now the point of all this is that there is a sound physical basis for the Heliocentric Solar System (though not a Heliocentric Universe!) but
there is no physical basis for a Geocentric Solar System and still less for a Heliocentric Universe!

If Newton's Laws are correct that it is quite impossible for the far larger total masses of the rest of the Solar System (let alone the whole universe) to orbit the relatively small mass of the earth.

So, cikljamas, either come up with some alternate Laws of Motion and Gravitation or admit that you Geocentric ideas can have no basis.
I could, of course, start on all the astronomical observations that show the motion of the earth but we'll leave that for another day.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2019, 04:14:20 PM »
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS :

When? According to whom?

Quote
AND THIS IS HOW IT IS TODAY :

That looks like it's from www.timeanddate.com. Is it? Why don't you cite your sources?

June Solstice (Summer Solstice) is on Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:54 pm in Haparanda Hamn. In terms of daylight, this day is 21 hours, 1 minute longer than on December Solstice.

From the same source, on the December solstice, sunrise is 9:53 am and sunset is 12:52 pm, giving a length of day that is one minute less than three hours.

Do you understand why, according to what I presume is your source here, day on the June solstice is 21 hours, not 24 hours, longer than it is on the December solstice at Haparanda Hamn, that is, you don't get a corresponding day at the December solstice where the sun doesn't rise at all? I do. Since it's outside the Arctic circle, based purely on geometry and the center of the sun it shouldn't have a midnight sun at all, but it does, just barely, because of refraction (gasp!) and the roughly 1/4° apparent radius of the sun.

So what's your source for what appears to be a travelogue, and what are those times based on?

Arctic Circle: 66° 56'
Haparanda : 65° 51' N
THE DIFFERENCE =  1° 5'

So, there is a very good reason for sunset to occur for the observers in Haparanda even at the very peak of the Northern Summer Solstice.

You have asked for my source, here it is :



Your excuse "...it shouldn't have a midnight sun at all, but it does, just barely, because of refraction (gasp!) and the roughly 1/4° apparent radius of the sun." , doesn't hold water, because your refraction would have prevented the sun to set in Haparanda 150 years ago (when Paul B. Du Chaillu had traveled across the land of the midnight sun), also.

Another problem : According to mr Chaillu 150 years ago, he could observe midnight sun from the hill Avasaxa (66.4000° N, 23.7333° E) only for 4 days (from 22nd to 25th of June), and these days you can see Midnight Sun from Haparanda (65° 51' N) according to one source for the whole 11 days, and according to another source for the whole 7 days :




How about that?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2019, 04:22:01 PM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #75 on: March 27, 2019, 07:45:28 PM »
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS :

When? According to whom?

Quote
AND THIS IS HOW IT IS TODAY :

That looks like it's from www.timeanddate.com. Is it? Why don't you cite your sources?

June Solstice (Summer Solstice) is on Friday, June 21, 2019 at 5:54 pm in Haparanda Hamn. In terms of daylight, this day is 21 hours, 1 minute longer than on December Solstice.

From the same source, on the December solstice, sunrise is 9:53 am and sunset is 12:52 pm, giving a length of day that is one minute less than three hours.

Do you understand why, according to what I presume is your source here, day on the June solstice is 21 hours, not 24 hours, longer than it is on the December solstice at Haparanda Hamn, that is, you don't get a corresponding day at the December solstice where the sun doesn't rise at all? I do. Since it's outside the Arctic circle, based purely on geometry and the center of the sun it shouldn't have a midnight sun at all, but it does, just barely, because of refraction (gasp!) and the roughly 1/4° apparent radius of the sun.

So what's your source for what appears to be a travelogue, and what are those times based on?

Arctic Circle: 66° 56'
Haparanda : 65° 51' N
THE DIFFERENCE =  1° 5'

So, there is a very good reason for sunset to occur for the observers in Haparanda even at the very peak of the Northern Summer Solstice.

Arctic Circle: 66° 33' 39" N [http://www.lat34north.com/cities/citieslatitude.cfm] (this varies slightly because the earth's axial tilt does vary by a couple of degrees over a 40,000-year cycle, and nutation will move it by some seconds of arc over an 18-year cycle)

Difference 0° 43' (almost). Approximately 1/2° refraction + approximately 1/4° apparent radius = approximately 0° 45'.

So, there is a very good reason to expect a midnight sun to occur for the observers in Haparanda under nominal conditions.

Quote
You have asked for my source, here it is :

<Page from a book about one man's travels>

... so I was right. It was a travelogue.

Quote
Your excuse "...it shouldn't have a midnight sun at all, but it does, just barely, because of refraction (gasp!) and the roughly 1/4° apparent radius of the sun." , doesn't hold water, because your refraction would have prevented the sun to set in Haparanda 150 years ago (when Paul B. Du Chaillu had traveled across the land of the midnight sun).

He doesn't say where those times came from, but presuming they are something he witnessed, what do they mean? Since refraction varies depending on atmospheric conditions, and Haparanda is right on the very edge of where a midnight sun is expected under nominal conditions, a slight decrease in the amount of refraction will allow a sunset, and a slight increase will increase the number of days it can happen, as the data you present (quoted below) shows. Another very realistic possibility is that he had no clear view of the true horizon because of terrain, or, if he was looking over the sea, by distant clouds. The sunrise and sunset times presented by services like timeanddate.com are for an ideal horizon; they do not apply exactly if whatever forms your horizon is lower or higher altitude than you are; they also presume average atmospheric conditions.

In short, even though Mssr. Du Chaillu lists exact-sounding times for a sunrise-sunset pair on a single day, he gives no meaningful details like weather conditions, what the horizon was like, or pertinent times for previous or subsequent days.

Quote
Another problem : According to mr Chaillu 150 years ago, he could observe midnight sun from the hill Avasaxa (66.4000° N, 23.7333° E) only for 4 days (from 22nd to 25th of June), and these days you can see Midnight Sun from Haparanda (65° 51' N) according to one source for the whole 11 days, and according to another source for the whole 7 days :



<Another image of the table from timeanddate.com>

How about that?

There is a problem all right, but it's not mine. It's yours.

First, it looks like your sources are in conflict with each other. This should be expected since refraction depends on the state of the atmosphere at a particular time, and this, to no one's surprise, varies. Note the midnight sun, followed by a day with a (sunset, I guess... maybe it's a sunrise; the column headings are missing) followed by more days with midnight sun in the middle column of that first table. This is the sort of thing you'd expect from a weather-dependent phenomenon, and illustrates very nicely what I'm saying.

Second, he makes no mention about whether or not the midnight sun was visible from Haparanda on those days he was enjoying it from Avasaxa. You're assuming not, but from what you've presented, you have no way of knowing this.

So, again, unless there's more, this, too, is only anecdotal. Sorry.

You may not like refraction as an explanation for what causes effects like this, but nature doesn't care what you want to believe.

[Edit] Fix URLs.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2019, 07:53:42 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #76 on: March 27, 2019, 11:05:17 PM »
Arctic Circle: 66° 56'
Haparanda : 65° 51' N
THE DIFFERENCE =  1° 5'

Incorrect! The currebt location of the Arctic Circle is at 66° 33' 39" N so:
Arctic Circle: 66° 33' 39" N
Haparanda : 65° 50' 30" N
THE DIFFERENCE =  0° 43' 09"

But not only that you seem ignorant of even the definition of civil sunrise and sunset and the difference between this and ideal geometric sunrise and sunset.

Read this:
Quote
  WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SUNRISE/SUNSET
Question: What is the definition of sunrise/sunset and moonrise/moonset, especially regarding the exact times of day when they occur?

Answer: Sunset occurs when the upper edge of the Sun – called the upper limb – sinks just under the horizon; sunrise occurs when the upper limb rises just above the horizon. The same is true for the Moon.

These events can happen earlier or later than expected because the atmosphere bends the light rays near the horizon in such a manner that the Sun and Moon can appear to be above the horizon when they are already (or still, in the case of sunrise and moonrise) beneath it.
But your claims seem based on the simple geometric definitions based on the centre of the sun touching the horizon.

The two effects combined may add 4 or 5 minutes to the length of a day at mid-latitudes but in polar regions can have quite a large effect.

Quote from: cikljamas
So, there is a very good reason for sunset to occur for the observers in Haparanda even at the very peak of the Northern Summer Solstice.
So there is no reason at all for sunset to occur for the observers in Haparanda even at the very peak of the Northern Summer Solstice.
Quote from: cikljamas
You have asked for my source, here it is :
OK, we believe your source but NOT YOU!

Quote from: cikljamas
Your excuse "...it shouldn't have a midnight sun at all, but it does, just barely, because of refraction (gasp!) and the roughly 1/4° apparent radius of the sun." , doesn't hold water, because your refraction would have prevented the sun to set in Haparanda 150 years ago (when Paul B. Du Chaillu had traveled across the land of the midnight sun), also.
No, Haparanda does NOT have midnight sun simply because of refraction but partly because you assume that sunrise is when the centre of the sun is on the horizon but that is quite incorrect!
Sunrise (and the first sunlight) is when the top edge of the sun just shows over the horizon.
And whether you like it or not atmospheric refraction, especially near the horizon, is very real and has been studied for over 220 years.
The first to measure atmospheric refraction as it affected astronomical observation, especially of Mars, was your favourite astronomer, Tycho Brahe!
You might study this:Here are some modern tables of the refraction of light due to the atmosphere for various elevation angles:

Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, M. E. THOMAS AND R. I. JOSEPH
From: Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level
The paper might be worth reading for those interested in views of the sun near the horizon.

Near the horizon the atmosphere typically bends downwards by roughly 0.5°.

Quote from: cikljamas
Another problem : According to mr Chaillu 150 years ago, he could observe midnight sun from the hill Avasaxa (66.4000° N, 23.7333° E) only for 4 days (from 22nd to 25th of June), and these days you can see Midnight Sun from Haparanda (65° 51' N) according to one source for the whole 11 days, and according to another source for the whole 7 days :

How about that?
So which is it "the whole 11 days" or "the whole 7 days"? Do we toss a coin?

But let's look at the modern figures again:
TimeandDate.com show that for the 2018 Solstice: Haparanda, Sweden at 65° 50' 30" N 24° 07' 40" E had 24 hour sun from June 19 to 24 (inc) in 2018. that's 6 days.
But at that latitude moving only a few minutes of arc has a large effect on the "midnight sun" duration.
For example Kemi at 65° 44' 11" N 24° 33' 52" E and on June 21 in 2018 (officially) the sun set at 1:19 am and rose again at 1:27 am, only 8 minutes of no sun.
Moving such a small distance south made a great difference in times because of the very shallow the sun sets and rises.

But, I ask again: Why are these questions even relevant to the Geocentric versus Heliocentric question?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #77 on: March 28, 2019, 12:34:08 AM »
Arctic Circle: 66° 56'
Where are you pulling this from?
From wiki, the Arctic circle is 66° 34'.
Based upon axial tilt (also from wiki), it works out to be 66° 34'.
That means the difference is 43', or 0.72°, not the >1° you claim.

The water of a degree radius of the sun cuts that down to less than 30 minutes of arc required. Refraction can easily give you that.

As for why some might claim you don't, it depends upon your idea of sunset.
Some will have it be the time the sun first touches the horizon, some will have it be when the midpoint passes the horizon, others will have it when the sun is entirely below the horizon.
Some will have the actual horizon, others will use a hypothetical horizon at 0 degrees. Some will include the effect of refraction and go based upon what is actually seen, some will ignore it. This can be especially problematic for sites which calculate it, as elevation can effect and various in refraction can be significant.

And once again, GC vs HC MAKES NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!
So once again, no smoking gun, just you grasping at straws.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #78 on: March 28, 2019, 07:08:58 AM »
Arctic Circle: 66° 56'
Where are you pulling this from?
From wiki, the Arctic circle is 66° 34'.
Based upon axial tilt (also from wiki), it works out to be 66° 34'.
That means the difference is 43', or 0.72°, not the >1° you claim.

I confused these two conventions : 66° 33´ 39" (or 66.56083°)
However, you still can't escape your fate regarding this issue, since 43' difference is still a huge reason for sunset in Haparanda :

1. Locations further north than the Arctic Circle and further south than the Antarctic Circle experience no full sunset or sunrise on at least one day of the year, when the polar day or the polar night persists continuously for 24 hours, but full polar night occurs only at a latitude of more than about 72.5 degrees.

2. If the center of the sun (sun's apparent angular diameter at aphelion = 31') is aligned with the Arctic Circle at Summer Solstice, it means that even at the Arctic Circle the sun is partially bellow the horizon at the very peak of Summer Solstice. Thence : see No 1, again.

3. Since Haparanda is located at 65° 50' 30" N it means that the Sun Disk when looking from Haparanda is 30' bellow the horizon because when we lower that portion of the Sun which is above the horizon at the Arctic Circle (we subtract 15' from 43') how much of that difference (43') remains? The answer is 28' (which is only 3' less than the entire apparent angular diameter of Sun Disk), isn't that so?

4. Maybe Mr Paul B. Du Chaillu didn't measure by himself when the Sun exactly had set (and rose) in Haparanda 150 years ago, it is much more likely (almost certainly) that he took these information from some old astronomical manual (almanac) and cited it in his book. However, such an explorer would have noticed that the Sun had stayed at the horizon for a full 24 hours had such spectacle really happened 150 years ago. At least someone would have told him that such phenomena could occur in Haparanda had any (ancient-still alive-at that time) citizen of Haparanda ever experienced such phenomena.  Yes, Alpha was right, It was a travelogue, so what???

5. So, we can accept that because along the Arctic Circle one half of Sun's Disk is always above the horizon at Summer Solstice the sun never (phenomenally) sets bellow the horizon. But even though if it is not full-sunset, it is still sunset (we can call it : a half-sunset), see No 1, again.

Rovaniemi - City in Finland (66.5039° N, 25.7294° E - located exactly at the Arctic Circle), is the capital of Lapland, in northern Finland. Almost totally destroyed during World War II, today it’s a modern city known for being the "official" home town of Santa Claus, and for viewing the Northern Lights.

In June and July there are 30 consecutive days when the sun is above the horizon (from June 7th till July 6th) in Rovaniemi.

Sun's declination on June 7th =  N22° 42'
Sun's declination on June 21th = N23° 26'
The difference = 44'

Now we have here the same problem as in Haparanda case, because phenomenally you can say that the sun didn't set because it's twilight, but you can't claim that the sun didn't set (in astronomical terms). And we talk here in astronomical terms, not in phenomenological terms.

6.
Sun's declination on July 14th = N21° 46' (1° 40' lower than on June 21th)
Bodo Norway Latitude = 67° 16' 49.2852'' N (43' north of Arctic Circle)

1° 40' - 43' = 57' (almost one full degree)

This means that the center of the sun (in the following video) when the sun is closest to the horizon should have to be 57' (astronomically) above the horizon, and 1,5°  (when we add refraction index) above the horizon (phenomenally)...This means that in the following video the apparent position of the center of the sun (when the sun is closest to the horizon line - somewhere at 40 sec in the video) has to be 1,5° higher above the real (astronomical) position of the Sun (above the Arctic Circle) at June 21th (the peak of Summer Solstice)...It means that we have to add more than three apparent Sun's Disk above Sun's real (astronomical) position of the Sun (above the Arctic Circle) at June 21th, so to get the final phenomenological result which doesn't correspond with what we can see in the following footage (because the sun is (apparently) even partially bellow the horizon line in some sequences of this video) :



This video proves that your refraction excuse is totally bogus or that refraction even works in an opposite direction (which raises this problem to a new level)!

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #79 on: March 28, 2019, 08:43:43 AM »



Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #80 on: March 28, 2019, 11:07:07 AM »
Arctic Circle: 66° 56'
Where are you pulling this from?
From wiki, the Arctic circle is 66° 34'.
Based upon axial tilt (also from wiki), it works out to be 66° 34'.
That means the difference is 43', or 0.72°, not the >1° you claim.

I confused these two conventions : 66° 33´ 39" (or 66.56083°)

That's an easy enough mistake to make, but it was immediately obvious to those familiar with the location of the tropics and polar circles.

Quote
However, you still can't escape your fate regarding this issue, since 43' difference is still a huge reason for sunset in Haparanda :

1. Locations further north than the Arctic Circle and further south than the Antarctic Circle experience no full sunset or sunrise on at least one day of the year, when the polar day or the polar night persists continuously for 24 hours, but full polar night occurs only at a latitude of more than about 72.5 degrees.

2. If the center of the sun (sun's apparent angular diameter at aphelion = 31') is aligned with the Arctic Circle at Summer Solstice, it means that even at the Arctic Circle the sun is partially bellow the horizon at the very peak of Summer Solstice. Thence : see No 1, again.

That doesn't matter. The definition of sunset for astronomical purposes is when all of the sun's disk is below the horizon, not just any part of it, or the center.

What has become very clear is that you are unfamiliar with the definition of astronomical sunset.

Quote
3. Since Haparanda is located at 65° 50' 30" N it means that the Sun Disk when looking from Haparanda is 30' bellow the horizon because when we lower that portion of the Sun which is above the horizon at the Arctic Circle (we subtract 15' from 43') how much of that difference (43') remains? The answer is 28' (which is only 3' less than the entire apparent angular diameter of Sun Disk), isn't that so?

Yes, but you're neglecting the approximately 30' of refraction under normal conditions. The effect of this refraction is to make objects appear higher in the sky than they actually are. With 30' of refraction and your 28' the upper limb of the sun is geometrically below the horizon, a little bit of the the upper limb is visible above the horizon, which means the sun has not set. (See the reply to your point 2.)

Quote
4. Maybe Mr Paul B. Du Chaillu didn't measure by himself when the Sun exactly had set (and rose) in Haparanda 150 years ago, it is much more likely (almost certainly) that he took these information from some old astronomical manual (almanac) and cited it in his book.

Which is exactly why this is not reliable data. We do not know where those numbers came from or what they represent. Maybe it was overcast the night of the 21st and he couldn't tell if the sun set at all so he simply reported some information he found somewhere. Perhaps that data was for the time the center of the solar disk was predicted to be below the horizon, which some tables intended for navigational purposes may have provided. We cannot tell.

Quote
However, such an explorer would have noticed that the Sun had stayed at the horizon for a full 24 hours had such spectacle really happened 150 years ago.

It wouldn't have stayed at the horizon for a full 24 hours. At its highest it would have been more than 46° above the horizon. We don't know if he witnessed the position of the sun around local midnight or not or if he had a clear view all the way to the true horizon.

Quote
At least someone would have told him that such phenomena could occur in Haparanda had any (ancient-still alive-at that time) citizen of Haparanda ever experienced such phenomena. 

You're speculating. Maybe he didn't speak Swedish or the local dialect whatever language was used there at the time, and they didn't speak French. He may not have considered the opinions of the locals to be useful and didn't bother to ask. Who knows?

Quote
Yes, Alpha was right, It was a travelogue, so what???

It's anecdotal, that's what.

The times it reports are of unknown provenance. Since it wasn't a scientific or technical report, establishing their veracity and specifying their meaning was considered unnecessary. What he said may have been close enough to correct for its intended purpose, which was to be read for amusement by people who would in all likelihood never go there.

Quote
5. So, we can accept that because along the Arctic Circle one half of Sun's Disk is always above the horizon at Summer Solstice the sun never (phenomenally) sets bellow the horizon. But even though if it is not full-sunset, it is still sunset (we can call it : a half-sunset), see No 1, again.

Redefining "sunset" so that it loses its meaning may be the only hope you have to salvage your argument. See my reply to No 2. for the definition of astronomical sunset that is used now.

Quote
Rovaniemi - City in Finland (66.5039° N, 25.7294° E - located exactly at the Arctic Circle), is the capital of Lapland, in northern Finland. Almost totally destroyed during World War II, today it’s a modern city known for being the "official" home town of Santa Claus, and for viewing the Northern Lights.

In June and July there are 30 consecutive days when the sun is above the horizon (from June 7th till July 6th) in Rovaniemi.

Sun's declination on June 7th =  N22° 42'
Sun's declination on June 21th = N23° 26'
The difference = 44'

Now we have here the same problem as in Haparanda case, because phenomenally you can say that the sun didn't set because it's twilight, but you can't claim that the sun didn't set (in astronomical terms). And we talk here in astronomical terms, not in phenomenological terms.

It's indeed a problem - again, for you.

Let's see... geometrically the center of the sun is 44' below the horizon. 15' of solar radius puts the upper limb 29' below the horizon. 30' of nominal refraction raises the upper limb to 1' above the horizon so, astronomically, the sun has not set.

Quote
6.
Sun's declination on July 14th = N21° 46' (1° 40' lower than on June 21th)
Bodo Norway Latitude = 67° 16' 49.2852'' N (43' north of Arctic Circle)

1° 40' - 43' = 57' (almost one full degree)

This means that the center of the sun (in the following video) when the sun is closest to the horizon should have to be 57' (astronomically) above the horizon, and 1,5°  (when we add refraction index) above the horizon (phenomenally)...This means that in the following video the apparent position of the center of the sun (when the sun is closest to the horizon line - somewhere at 40 sec in the video) has to be 1,5° higher above the real (astronomical) position of the Sun (above the Arctic Circle) at June 21th (the peak of Summer Solstice)...It means that we have to add more than three apparent Sun's Disk above Sun's real (astronomical) position of the Sun (above the Arctic Circle) at June 21th, so to get the final phenomenological result which doesn't correspond with what we can see in the following footage (because the sun is (apparently) even partially bellow the horizon line in some sequences of this video) :

That is very confusing. Let's see if we can parse out what you're trying to say. Please correct any errors in interpretation.

"Sun's declination on July 14th = N21° 46' (1° 40' lower than on June 21th)
Bodo Norway Latitude = 67° 16' 49.2852'' N (43' north of Arctic Circle)"

The center of the sun is 1° 40' south of the tropic of Cancer, and the view is from 43' north of the arctic circle. This is about what I calculated going the other way at a similar time after the December solstice previously, and I'll accept the location given as correct, so, OK.

"This means that the center of the sun when the sun is closest to the horizon should have to be 57' (astronomically) above the horizon, and 1,5°  (when we add refraction index) above the horizon (phenomenally)..."

The meaning of this is not clear. Do you mean that when the center of the sun appears to be on the horizon, you think it must really be 57' above the horizon geometrically (neglecting refraction) and another 33' higher to account for refraction? That is incorrect. Why do you think so?

If refraction is around its nominal value, when the center of the sun appears to be on the horizon, it's really about 30' below the horizon geometrically.

"This means that in the following video the apparent position of the center of the sun (when the sun is closest to the horizon line - somewhere at 40 sec in the video) has to be 1,5° higher above the real (astronomical) position of the Sun (above the Arctic Circle) at June 21th (the peak of Summer Solstice)...It means that we have to add more than three apparent Sun's Disk above Sun's real (astronomical) position of the Sun (above the Arctic Circle) at June 21th, so to get the final phenomenological result which doesn't correspond with what we can see in the following footage (because the sun is (apparently) even partially bellow the horizon line in some sequences of this video)"

Your previous statement is in error, so this conclusion based on it is wrong.

At the solstice, if you're 43' north of the arctic circle, the center of the sun at its lowest point would be 43' above the horizon geometrically. Using Rab's table and interpolating, an object at 0° 43' above the horizon geometrically would appear to be at inclination angle around 1° 07' due to a deflection of about 0° 24' due to refraction in standard atmospheric conditions.

Quote


This video proves that your refraction excuse is totally bogus or that refraction even works in an opposite direction (which raises this problem to a new level)!

It proves nothing of the sort. In fact, it 'proves' nothing at all but does support the existence (and variability) atmospheric refraction.

So, what about the phenomenon the video shows? If the sun at its lowest point on July 14 is 1° 40' lower than its lowest point on the solstice, then, geometrically, its center should be 0° 57' below the horizon. With a 15' nominal radius, the upper limb of the sun is 0° 42' below the horizon. Using 31' for nominal refraction (Rab's table at 0° apparent inclination) leaves 0° 11' unaccounted for.

The video was obviously recorded above water level, but how far above the water is not known. If it's 10 m, then the visible horizon will be about 6' below the ideal horizon, making up more than half of that 11'. 20 m would lower the visible horizon by about 9', almost all that's needed to bring the uppermost part of the sun back into view. Since the sun does, in fact, drop completely below the apparent horizon, that might fully explain why it visible for as much of the time as it is.

Also note that the table is based on "standard" atmospheric conditions, but these can obviously vary (see the several threads in these forums for examples where the higher skyscrapers in the Chicago skyline are visible from distances far in excess of where they would be visible under normal conditions). Given how the sun appears to skitter along the horizon for several minutes, it looks like ducting is is in play. Look it up. The necessary conditions are not uncommon immediately above bodies of water.

In short, there is no disagreement between that video and our well-established and well-tested understanding of solar system geometry and a rotating spherical earth with a stratified atmosphere.

Since we know the length of the sidereal day is not constant, but varies very slightly short term with a long-term lengthening
trend, the lengths of the seasons measured in Hipparchus' time is consistent with the precession of the equinoxes, and you can present no reliable evidence for your postulated "wandering sun", it looks like you're zero out of three for the arguments you've presented in this thread alone.

I see you just posted more Inuit stuff.

"The sun is out longer" appears looks like a rehash of what we went over earlier. Where's the data, not stories?

"During the longer days, the rising of the sun appears to be coming from the north." Well, duh... not only does it appear to be rising from the north, it is rising from the north on those very long days. That's exactly what is expected to happen at high northern latitudes, and what it has done for all of human history and much, much, longer. Think about it... the sun will be lowest when it's due north; those days where there is a brief time when the sun drops below the horizon, it will be in the north, setting just west of due north and rising again just east of due north.

Did he really just notice this? So much for "the wisdom of Inuit elders."
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #81 on: March 28, 2019, 01:22:23 PM »
However, you still can't escape your fate regarding this issue, since 43' difference is still a huge reason for sunset in Haparanda
Already explained why it isn't. You ignoring them doesn't magically make them go away.

This video proves that your refraction excuse is totally bogus or that refraction even works in an opposite direction (which raises this problem to a new level)!
Make the argument yourself, don't just link to a video you don't understand. (As a hint, the sun goes behind mountains, not below the horizon).

And no, refraction will not work in the opposite direction.
Remember refraction 101?
When light passes from a medium with a low refractive index into one with a higher refractive index it will curve towards the normal.
When light passes from a medium with a high refractive index into one with a lower refractive index it will curve away from the normal.
For air, the higher the density, the higher the refractive index.
For air, it will typically have low density air above high density air. If it didn't, then the high density air would sink and displace the low density air.

This means that if light is going up it goes from high density and thus high refractive index into low density and thus low refractive index. This curves the light downwards.
If it is going down from low density and thus low refractive index into high density and thus high refractive index it curves the light downwards.

This means that refraction will curve light passing through air downwards.

If light gets curved downwards, objects appear higher than they actually are.

So no, refraction will work in the correct direction.
The only point to argue is the magnitude. The sources I can find indicate that objects near the horizon will be refracted up by more than half a degree.


And once again, you ignore the key point:
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A GC OR HC WORLD! YOU GET THE SAME RESULT!!!
Going to GC doesn't magically mean the sun can appear further around.

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #82 on: March 28, 2019, 03:58:50 PM »
I confused these two conventions : 66° 33´ 39" (or 66.56083°)

That's understandable.
Personally, I'd prefer to use decimal degrees but you seemed to be using deg, min, secs as do many websites.

Quote from: cikljamas
However, you still can't escape your fate regarding this issue, since 43' difference is still a huge reason for sunset in Haparanda :
There is nothing that needs escaping from at all. The "sunset in Haparanda" is exactly as expected when the correct definition of sunrise/sunset and refraction are included!

Quote from: cikljamas
]
1. Locations further north than the Arctic Circle and further south than the Antarctic Circle experience no full sunset or sunrise on at least one day of the year, when the polar day or the polar night persists continuously for 24 hours, but full polar night occurs only at a latitude of more than about 72.5 degrees.

2. If the center of the sun (sun's apparent angular diameter at aphelion = 31') is aligned with the Arctic Circle at Summer Solstice, it means that even at the Arctic Circle the sun is partially bellow the horizon at the very peak of Summer Solstice. Thence : see No 1, again.

3. Since Haparanda is located at 65° 50' 30" N it means that the Sun Disk when looking from Haparanda is 30' bellow the horizon because when we lower that portion of the Sun which is above the horizon at the Arctic Circle (we subtract 15' from 43') how much of that difference (43') remains? The answer is 28' (which is only 3' less than the entire apparent angular diameter of Sun Disk), isn't that so?

Yes, that is so, but face the simple and well-proven fact that the civil sunrise and sunset occur when the geometric centre of the sun is about 0.8° below the horizon.
For example from my LunSolCal app, here on March 21, 2019 (the Equinox):
         sunrise time was 5:52 AM when the sun's altitude was -0.8° and
         sunset time was 5:58 PM when the sun's altitude was again -0.8°.

Now read this again:
And whether you like it or not atmospheric refraction, especially near the horizon, is very real and has been studied for over 220 years.
The first to measure atmospheric refraction as it affected astronomical observation, especially of Mars, was your favourite astronomer, Tycho Brahe!
You might study this:Here are some modern tables of the refraction of light due to the atmosphere for various elevation angles:

Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, M. E. THOMAS AND R. I. JOSEPH
From: Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level
The paper might be worth reading for those interested in views of the sun near the horizon.
Near the horizon the atmosphere typically bends light from distant objects at the horizon downwards by roughly 0.5°.

So sure, "Haparanda is located at 65° 50' 30" N it means that the Sun Disk when looking from Haparanda is 30' below the horizon" but about 15' of that is the sun's half the sun's angular size and typically there is 34.5' of refraction at the apparent horizon.

So sunrise typically is when the geometric altitude of the sun's centre is 15' + 34.5' = 49.5' or 0.825° and the typical figure used is 0.8°. Get used to it!

I do not care how many anecdotes you come up with, for once in your life just face the facts!
Atmospheric Refraction is not an excuse. It is very real and a great problem for astronomers.

I remember back a few years when you argued just as vehemently (and incorrectly) that the earth was flat. Care to read your old posts again?
Here's an early one: Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Equator" problem « on: October 16, 2014, 05:00:32 AM ». You were wrong then and you are still wrong!

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #83 on: March 28, 2019, 05:22:14 PM »
Alpha, i respect you very much, i am not sure if i ever admitted it to you. I was pissed off at you multiple times (few years ago, during my flat-earth phase), and i remember calling you names, so now i use this opportunity to apologize to you for that. (Finally!!!) However, i am amazed by how you don't show any respect to those Inuit people. I called you "liar" multiple times, and i am sorry for that, but wouldn't it be nice if you stopped (although indirectly) calling Inuit people "liars," also?
Quote
"Sun's declination on July 14th = N21° 46' (1° 40' lower than on June 21th)
Bodo Norway Latitude = 67° 16' 49.2852'' N (43' north of Arctic Circle)"

The center of the sun is 1° 40' south of the tropic of Cancer, and the view is from 43' north of the arctic circle. This is about what I calculated going the other way at a similar time after the December solstice previously, and I'll accept the location given as correct, so, OK.

"This means that the center of the sun when the sun is closest to the horizon should have to be 57' (astronomically) above the horizon, and 1,5°  (when we add refraction index) above the horizon (phenomenally)..."

The meaning of this is not clear. Do you mean that when the center of the sun appears to be on the horizon, you think it must really be 57' above the horizon geometrically (neglecting refraction) and another 33' higher to account for refraction? That is incorrect. Why do you think so?

Holly shit, i went wrong direction. Thanks for correcting me, yes the center of the sun would be 57' below the horizon, not above the horizon. So, let's use here your nice explanation of this "Bodo" case, once again :

Quote
At the solstice, if you're 43' north of the arctic circle, the center of the sun at its lowest point would be 43' above the horizon geometrically. Using Rab's table and interpolating, an object at 0° 43' above the horizon geometrically would appear to be at inclination angle around 1° 07' due to a deflection of about 0° 24' due to refraction in standard atmospheric conditions.

So, what about the phenomenon the video shows? If the sun at its lowest point on July 14 is 1° 40' lower than its lowest point on the solstice, then, geometrically, its center should be 0° 57' below the horizon. With a 15' nominal radius, the upper limb of the sun is 0° 42' below the horizon. Using 31' for nominal refraction (Rab's table at 0° apparent inclination) leaves 0° 11' unaccounted for.

The video was obviously recorded above water level, but how far above the water is not known. If it's 10 m, then the visible horizon will be about 6' below the ideal horizon, making up more than half of that 11'. 20 m would lower the visible horizon by about 9', almost all that's needed to bring the uppermost part of the sun back into view. Since the sun does, in fact, drop completely below the apparent horizon, that might fully explain why it visible for as much of the time as it is.

Now, if we supposed that the center of the sun was 57' below the horizon, that the upper limb of the sun was 42' below the horizon and that the observer (his camera) was some 20 m above sea level, and let's account 31' refraction index, so that we can make a perfect match (concordance) between reality (presented in the video above) and your computation.

A scenario depicted above (according to your computation) means that the center of the sun should stay exactly at the horizon line, allowing constant visibility of the upper limb of the sun. But as you have noticed (unlike Jack) the sun completely disappears below the horizon line and stays there for one whole hour (which is even in agreement with "TimeandDate" data for that day and that place).

This means that you have to give up your refraction excuse.

Once you drop off your refraction excuse you come short for at least 1/4° or even up to 1/2°, so you lose Haparanda case, Inuit case, and all other "Inuit Sun" alike cases.

You have to ask yourself this : If you were high ranking NASA scientist responsible for coming up with the most effective excuse in relation to Inuit Sun issue, wouldn't it be the best way of dealing with (finding an excuse for the Sun being off for 1/4° or 1/2° ) that particular problem if you simply put the blame on the (all-mighty) refraction?

And maybe you should ask yourself this question : How come that astronomers didn't take into account all-mighty refraction 150 years ago???





 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 05:24:35 PM by cikljamas »

*

sokarul

  • 15361
  • Discount Chemist
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #84 on: March 28, 2019, 05:34:26 PM »
Maybe you should ask yourself why no one handed you a Nobel Prize.

Refraction didn't go anywhere.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2019, 06:31:34 PM »
And maybe you should ask yourself this question : How come that astronomers didn't take into account all-mighty refraction 150 years ago???
They did! Astronomers as far back as Ptolemy were aware of refraction and Tycho Brahe made a serious stuff of it.
Quote
TYCHO BRAHE'S OBSERVATIONS AND INSTRUMENTS, 1585 GREAT EQUATORIAL ARMILLARY

1585 Great Equatorial Armillary
Large instruments such as these, with improved sighting devices and measuring scales, as well as Tycho's advanced procedures to correct for atmospheric refraction, allowed him to compute stellar and planetary positions consistently accurate to within seconds of arc. Tycho's determination of the tropical year was too small by about one second, and his determination of the Earth's orbital tilt (which Tycho, committed to the Earth's fixity as he was, referred to as the angle between the ecliptic and the celestial equator) by half a minute of arc.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #86 on: March 28, 2019, 07:29:02 PM »
Alpha, i respect you very much, i am not sure if i ever admitted it to you. I was pissed off at you multiple times (few years ago, during my flat-earth phase), and i remember calling you names, so now i use this opportunity to apologize to you for that. (Finally!!!) However, i am amazed by how you don't show any respect to those Inuit people. I called you "liar" multiple times, and i am sorry for that, but wouldn't it be nice if you stopped (although indirectly) calling Inuit people "liars," also?

No worries, and your apology, while not needed, is accepted. I've enjoyed our discussions over the years. They've been exasperating at times, but mostly I think we've both come away learning something, and that's good.

I haven't called the Inuit liars. Lying implies an intention to deceive, which I do not believe is the case here. I do believe that some of what has been reported is garbled, either because of retelling over time, original observational error, or misinterpreted or misreported by those who relate the stories to us.

Some of it is possibly true and explained by known phenomena like (wait for it...) refraction. The fact is, when the sun intersects the horizon at a shallow angle, which it does at high latitudes near the solstices, a small change in the amount of refraction results in much larger changes in the azimuth where the sun disappears below the horizon. A plausible reason for a relatively recent, but persistent, change in the amount of atmospheric refraction has already been offered. It was the trend of increasing regional temperatures. As far as I know, that's still an hypothesis, but it's plausible and could be an explanation of the reported phenomena if they are, in fact, real.

Then there's this:

If that embedded text represents what the gentleman really said and meant, with the implication that this is different now than it used to be, it calls into question his observational skills, or memory. As explained earlier, on those days with only short times with the sun below the horizon at high northern latitudes, the sun will disappear below and re-emerge from the horizon close to due north. Around the December solstice, it rises and sets almost due south at those same latitudes and always has. There is no way around this.

Quote
...
Holly shit, i went wrong direction. Thanks for correcting me, yes the center of the sun would be 57' below the horizon, not above the horizon.

Lol! Everyone gets tripped up sometimes.

Quote
So, let's use here your nice explanation of this "Bodo" case, once again :

At the solstice, if you're 43' north of the arctic circle, the center of the sun at its lowest point would be 43' above the horizon geometrically. Using Rab's table and interpolating, an object at 0° 43' above the horizon geometrically would appear to be at inclination angle around 1° 07' due to a deflection of about 0° 24' due to refraction in standard atmospheric conditions.

So, what about the phenomenon the video shows? If the sun at its lowest point on July 14 is 1° 40' lower than its lowest point on the solstice, then, geometrically, its center should be 0° 57' below the horizon. With a 15' nominal radius, the upper limb of the sun is 0° 42' below the horizon. Using 31' for nominal refraction (Rab's table at 0° apparent inclination) leaves 0° 11' unaccounted for.

The video was obviously recorded above water level, but how far above the water is not known. If it's 10 m, then the visible horizon will be about 6' below the ideal horizon, making up more than half of that 11'. 20 m would lower the visible horizon by about 9', almost all that's needed to bring the uppermost part of the sun back into view. Since the sun does, in fact, drop completely below the apparent horizon, that might fully explain why it visible for as much of the time as it is.

Now, if we supposed that the center of the sun was 57' below the horizon, that the upper limb of the sun was 42' below the horizon and that the observer (his camera) was some 20 m above sea level, and let's account 31' refraction index, so that we can make a perfect match (concordance) between reality (presented in the video above) and your computation.

A scenario depicted above (according to your computation) means that the center of the sun should stay exactly at the horizon line, allowing constant visibility of the upper limb of the sun. But as you have noticed (unlike Jack) the sun completely disappears below the horizon line and stays there for one whole hour (which is even in agreement with "TimeandDate" data for that day and that place).

This means that you have to give up your refraction excuse.
[/quote]

No, it only means refraction, while simple in principle, can be quite complex in detail. Did you notice where I referred to ducting? That is not uncommon, especially just above large bodies of water, and is most likely the cause of what the video is showing.

Here's a paper that explains it pretty well and contains some modeled examples:

https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/simulations/ducting/duct_intro.html



Note how the reflection of the sun stays at the top of the duct even as the real sun drops.

Quote
Once you drop off your refraction excuse you come short for at least 1/4° or even up to 1/2°, so you lose Haparanda case, Inuit case, and all other "Inuit Sun" alike cases.

Which is the reason not to drop it. It happens in nature, is well understood although calculating its effects exactly is not possible because it would require complete detailed information about the state of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun, which is, of course, not physically possible.

Quote
You have to ask yourself this : If you were high ranking NASA scientist responsible for coming up with the most effective excuse in relation to Inuit Sun issue, wouldn't it be the best way of dealing with (finding an excuse for the Sun being off for 1/4° or 1/2° ) that particular problem if you simply put the blame on the (all-mighty) refraction?

If it explains the issue using well-understood principles and realistic assumptions, it's not an excuse. It's an explanation. So, sure. Why not?

Quote
And maybe you should ask yourself this question : How come that astronomers didn't take into account all-mighty refraction 150 years ago???

I don't have to. They did and had done so for centuries before that. [Thanks for posting the citation, Rab!]

Instead, I will ask you: why do you think they didn't account for refraction in the late 1800s?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15499
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2019, 08:22:18 PM »
Pretty sure Rube Goldberg had it figured out before Tycho Brahe.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

rabinoz

  • 19882
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2019, 11:18:36 PM »
Pretty sure Rube Goldberg had it figured out before Tycho Brahe.
Yup, probably about -400 years before!
But the recognition of atmospheric refraction predates even Tycho Brahe by many centuries:
Quote
When was the refraction of air itself first discovered?

The oldest text we have today is a description by Pliny the Elder, who lived in the first century A.D.
In his vast encyclopedia, he included an observation, made two centuries earlier, in which the refraction of air could be clearly recognized simply by looking with the naked eye. He described a lunar eclipse during which the Sun and the Moon were both seen above the horizon at the same time:

...he also discovered for what exact reason, although the shadow causing the eclipse must from sun-rise onward be below the earth, it happened once in the past that the moon was eclipsed in the west while both luminaries were visible above the earth.

The person to whom Pliny referred is Hipparchus (second century B.C.), the father of Greek quantitative astronomy.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #89 on: March 29, 2019, 02:38:51 AM »
This means that you have to give up your refraction excuse.
Once you drop off your refraction excuse you come short for at least 1/4° or even up to 1/2°, so you lose Haparanda case
No we don't.
Go and look at the actual numbers, it works just fine.

But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with HC vs GC. Guess what? If we lose, you lose as well.