Sunrise, Sunset: A Question for Flat-Earthers

[Justatruthseeker]

Nice picture.

And now please provide one showing the magnetic field that would result in the proposed path of the sun over the Flat Earth... that is, a circular path with a variable radius and a constant angular velocity.

You were just shown one, The magnetic field is into the plane of the paper, only out of the earth in our example. So the sun would rotate clockwise..... it's angular velocity remains the same because as we all understand..... "remember that the magnetic field cannot do work on the particle, so it cannot affect its speed". The only thing that would affect its orbit is the strength of the magnetic field. Which varies semi-annually, which would cause a change in orbit....

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JA078i001p00092

 

[Freodin]

You were just shown one, The magnetic field is into the plane of the paper, only out of the earth in our example. So the sun would rotate clockwise..... it's angular velocity remains the same because as we all understand..... "remember that the magnetic field cannot do work on the particle, so it cannot affect its speed". The only thing that would affect its orbit is the strength of the magnetic field. Which varies semi-annually, which would cause a change in orbit....

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JA078i001p00092

Please read the addendum. I explained why the system you posted can not result in an orbit with a constant angular velocity.

[ETA] Now let's wait and see if this gets a response or will be ignored.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please read the addendum. I explained why the system you posted can not result in an orbit with a constant angular velocity.

[ETA] Now let's wait and see if this gets a response or will be ignored.

And I gave you the answer before your addendum. The strength of the geomagnetic field cycles seasonally, It is the strength of the magnetic field that creates the force "according to Eq. (158), this force is always directed towards the centre of the orbit."

Thus if the magnetic force is stronger, the orbit is smaller, and if weaker, greater.....

Simple laws of physics... "We have seen that the force exerted on a charged particle by a magnetic field is always perpendicular to its instantaneous direction of motion"

Combined with the electric field, it is the physics behind every particle accelerator. The strength of the magnetic field determines the circular path the particle takes. Therefore if the strength varies, the path varies.......

"However, this angle is always

for the force exerted by a magnetic field on a charged particle, since the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle's instantaneous direction of motion. It follows that a magnetic field is unable to do work on a charged particle. In other words, a charged particle can never gain or lose energy due to interaction with a magnetic field. On the other hand, a charged particle can certainly gain or lose energy due to interaction with an electric field. Thus, magnetic fields are often used in particle accelerators to guide charged particle motion (e.g., in a circle), but the actual acceleration is always performed by electric fields. "

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But let me tell you why I believe the earth is round and the videos are not faked. If they were faking astronomical data, then they wouldn't be publishing stories every single time that show their surprise and the incorrect predictions of their theories making them look like fools. Instead almost every story would be a confirmation of their beliefs, not a falsification......
So the odds of them faking the data is slim, since they might as well fake all of it and get all the stories correct....

 

[Aman777]

God's Timeline
14+ Billion years ago God makes Adam's Earth Gen 1:9-10 Day 3
14 Billion years ago Adam is formed Gen 2:4 Day 3
13.8 Billion years ago The Big Bang of our Cosmos occurs. Day 3
4.53 Billion years ago The present Earth is formed Gen 2:4 Day 5
3.77 Billion years ago Universal Common Ancestor appears in water Gen 1:21 Day 5

5-6 Million years ago Prehistoric man diverges from Chimps Gen 6:4 Day 5

11 Thousand years ago Noah brings Human (descendants of Adam) civilization to planet Earth on the Ark. Gen 8:4 Noah's grandsons marry prehistoric people and produce today's Humans Day 6

Soon, Jesus returns at Armageddon, rules Earth for a thousand years, and the 6th Day/Age ends Gen 1:31
The 7th Day, the Age of Joy, begins Gen 2:1-3

God's creation timeline agrees with Science and History but does NOT agree with the false ToE. That's because the Ark arrived in the mountains of Ararat only 11k years ago according to History. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html Human civilization began when Adam's Human descendants arrived on this planet of Apes. Amen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now we have gone from flat earth to alien invasions..... except we are the aliens.....

 

[Freodin]

And I gave you the answer before your addendum. The strength of the geomagnetic field cycles seasonally, It is the strength of the magnetic field that creates the force "according to Eq. (158), this force is always directed towards the centre of the orbit."

Thus if the magnetic force is stronger, the orbit is smaller, and if weaker, greater.....

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes, this is correct. The radius of the orbit is inverse proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

But the angular velocity is also directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

That means, if you make the magnetic field stronger to get a smaller orbit, you will also get smaller orbital periods. You will get different lengths of a day in different seasons (whereas "day" is the complete orbit of the sun, not the period of light vs. dark)

I hope you will agree that we do not observe such a change.

So the answer you gave me is wrong. I have demonstrated that using your own source material.

Simple laws of physics... "We have seen that the force exerted on a charged particle by a magnetic field is always perpendicular to its instantaneous direction of motion"

Combined with the electric field, it is the physics behind every particle accelerator. The strength of the magnetic field determines the circular path the particle takes. Therefore if the strength varies, the path varies.......

"However, this angle is always

for the force exerted by a magnetic field on a charged particle, since the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle's instantaneous direction of motion. It follows that a magnetic field is unable to do work on a charged particle. In other words, a charged particle can never gain or lose energy due to interaction with a magnetic field. On the other hand, a charged particle can certainly gain or lose energy due to interaction with an electric field. Thus, magnetic fields are often used in particle accelerators to guide charged particle motion (e.g., in a circle), but the actual acceleration is always performed by electric fields. "

So not only do you now need a constantly changing magnetic field - changing in a way that is not quite compatible with observations, I must add - you need to have a changing and moving electric field. An electric field that is again not compatible with existing observations of earth's electric field.

Please add this to your model. Should be simple, right?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

What is indeed interesting is the complete lack of scientific approach that you show here.

Attributing measurements to different factors? Totally legit. I even grant you that "altitude" can be a factor here. But with "temperature, humidity, etc", you only show your desperate grasp for straws.

This is but the logical conclusion. To insist otherwise is only your own attempt at grasping at straws to redeem your failed theory. If there was no weight change between day and night due change in gravity (with sun position), this invalidates the claim that the weight change at different latitudes was due to gravity.

It is not only that these factors do not play a role in "weight" in the standard physical models. It is not only that these factors do not play a role in YOUR model, when you claim that your solar model works with the same formulas, just a different constant.

If they don't work in the standard physics models, why complain that they don't work in mine?

What you say is basically: "If these changes are there, your model is false. If these changes are not there, your model is false. Head, I win, tail, you lose."

Nope. If a consistent weight change was there over a 24 hour cycle, that would be consistent with your model. That it's not shows the assumption that the weight change is due to gravity is wrong. So there must be other causes - e.g. air density, humidity, temperature etc.

If your conclusion is not influenced by the observations IN ANY WAY... you are not doing science.

So how is the belief in ball-Earth science again? Where is your example of the layer of water sticking to the underside of the ball by gravity?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I would like to see your math.

I can show you my calculations, and you seem to be off by about a factor of 10.

Let me know if any of the below are out of the ball-park. I used F = G. m1. m2 / r^2, with commonly accepted (heliocentric based) masses of Earth, sun, ball-Earth diameter, and Earth-sun radius.

Force of sun on 500g object ~ 2.96E-03N.
Force of Earth on 500g object ~ 4.93N.
So force on object with sun overhead ~ 4.93 - 2.96E-03 = 4.9269N
So force on object with sun underneath ~ 4.93 + 2.96E-03 = 4.9328N

Converting the above back to masses (as scale reads in mass, not force), using g = 9.81m.s-2 as an approximation as scale calibration is not changed, one gets roughly 502.23g and 502.83g.

 

[Freodin]

Let me know if any of the below are out of the ball-park. I used F = G. m1. m2 / r^2, with commonly accepted (heliocentric based) masses of Earth, sun, ball-Earth diameter, and Earth-sun radius.

Force of sun on 500g object ~ 2.96E-03N.
Force of Earth on 500g object ~ 4.93N.
So force on object with sun overhead ~ 4.93 - 2.96E-03 = 4.9269N
So force on object with sun underneath ~ 4.93 + 2.96E-03 = 4.9328N

Converting the above back to masses (as scale reads in mass, not force), using g = 9.81m.s-2 as an approximation as scale calibration is not changed, one gets roughly 502.23g and 502.83g.

Sorry, I double checked it again, your intial value of 0.6g was correct.

 

[Aman777]

Now we have gone from flat earth to alien invasions..... except we are the aliens.....

Amen. Humans were made in Adam's Universe/firmament which was totally destroyed in water according to 2 Peter 3:6 Adam's Universe/firmament was made the 2nd Day by God. Gen 1:8 The present 2nd Universe/Heaven was made on the 3rd Day by Lord God/YHWH/Jesus) Gen 2:4.

Adam NEVER took a single step on this planet so IF you wish to call the common ancestor of ALL Humans, an alien, I would have to agree. What is interesting to me is that Adam's physical remains are at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat. He AND the entire first Earth were "clean dissolved" in the Lake. Isa 24:19

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Sorry, I double checked it again, your intial value of 0.6g was correct.

You're welcome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes, this is correct. The radius of the orbit is inverse proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

But the angular velocity is also directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

That means, if you make the magnetic field stronger to get a smaller orbit, you will also get smaller orbital periods. You will get different lengths of a day in different seasons (whereas "day" is the complete orbit of the sun, not the period of light vs. dark)

I hope you will agree that we do not observe such a change.

So the answer you gave me is wrong. I have demonstrated that using your own source material.

So not only do you now need a constantly changing magnetic field - changing in a way that is not quite compatible with observations, I must add - you need to have a changing and moving electric field. An electric field that is again not compatible with existing observations of earth's electric field.

Please add this to your model. Should be simple, right?

Except the sun does rise and set at different times, hence adjusting our clocks forwards and backwards for daylight savings time.....

Now if it rose and set throughout the year on a regular cycle, there would be no need to adjust our clocks.

Their explanation is that earth speeds up or slows down at perhilion or aphelion, yet it can just as easily be explained that the sun completes an orbit slower or faster depending on its diameter of motion.....

Once again, neither globe nor flat earth is excluded. There is no test to prove either....

Well there is one, but everybody ignored it. Flat mirrors versus convex mirror reflection....

And no, the angular velocity is not directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. Magnetic fields can do no work on a particle, only affect its direction. It can impart NO changes in speed. Hence we use magnetic fields in particle accelerators to direct their motion, not change the particles speed......

You need to study magnetic fields more, no magnetic field has EVER been observed to do work on a test particle, in other words change its speed....

 

[Freodin]

Except the sun does rise and set at different times, hence adjusting our clocks forwards and backwards for daylight savings time.....

Now if it rose and set throughout the year on a regular cycle, there would be no need to adjust our clocks.

What the...?

From the wiki article on Daylight Saving Time:
"Daylight saving time (abbreviated DST), often referred to as daylight savings time in the USA (see terminology), and known as summer time in some countries, is the practice of advancing clocks during summer months so that evening daylight lasts longer, while sacrificing normal sunrise times."

"DST is generally not observed near the equator, where sunrise times do not vary enough to justify it. Some countries observe it only in some regions; for example, southern Brazil observes it while equatorial Brazil does not.[3] Only a minority of the world's population uses DST, because Asia and Africa generally do not observe it."

Daylight saving time is a convenience. It doesn't adjust or add to the length of a day. It just shifts the (arbitrary) start and end point, so that instead of centring on the highest point in the solar path, it is changed to give more light on the evening, by giving up light on the morning.

That's the reason why we adjust the clock for DST. And because the reason isn't a changing length of the day, any country or region can use or not-use daylight saving time, as they see fit.

You don't think that the day is suddenly one hour longer in regions with DST, do you?

Their explanation is that earth speeds up or slows down at perhilion or aphelion, yet it can just as easily be explained that the sun completes an orbit slower or faster depending on its diameter of motion.....

Yes, but the problem here is that the observed values do not correspond with the values that the Flat Earth model would need.
The ratio between the northern and southern tropic on the Flat Earth is something about (roughly) 2 to 3. According to the formulas used in your source, the duration of a complete orbit would need to have the same ratio. But the observed ratio between longest and shortest solar day is only about 1.0007.
That is quite an observable difference.

And there is more. According to your source, a smaller orbit results in a shorter orbital period. That means on the Flat Earth, the solar day would be shorter in summer and longer in winter. But the observed data have two minima and maxima on the length of the solar day over a year: shorter at the equinoxes in both spring and autumn, longer at the solstices in both summer and winter.

In another thread I said:

Even the "best" Flat Earth systems is just a bunch of pseudo-science babble, just using terms and concepts of established science, but without any content.

This is exactly what you are doing here: you are using the terminology of established science, but you ignore the content.

Once again, neither globe nor flat earth is excluded. There is no test to prove either....
Well there is one, but everybody ignored it. Flat mirrors versus convex mirror reflection....

Based on your previous attempts, I don't have high expectations that this will lead anywhere. But, please, enlighten us: what tests do you want to perform with these mirrors?

And no, the angular velocity is not directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. Magnetic fields can do no work on a particle, only affect its direction. It can impart NO changes in speed. Hence we use magnetic fields in particle accelerators to direct their motion, not change the particles speed......

You need to study magnetic fields more, no magnetic field has EVER been observed to do work on a test particle, in other words change its speed....

Look at your own source material:
"The angular frequency of rotation of the particle (i.e., the number of radians the particle rotates through in one second) is: w =qB/m.
B is the magnetic field strength. So that is exactly what it says: the angular frequency is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength.

You are confusing the angular velocity with the orbital velocity.
The angular velocity describes, as said in your source: "the angular frequency of rotation of the particle (i.e., the number of radians the particle rotates through in one second)"

So the angular velocity determines who long the particle takes to go through one full orbit based on the angles.

The orbital velocity describes how fast the object goes along the curve of the orbit. It determines how long the partical takes to go through a certain distance.

A full circle always has 360°, or 2pi rad, regardless of the radius of the circle. But the circumference of a circle gets bigger with the radius.

An object on a circular path has to travel a longer distance, and thus it needs to be faster if it is to complete the circle in the same time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What the...?

From the wiki article on Daylight Saving Time:
"Daylight saving time (abbreviated DST), often referred to as daylight savings time in the USA (see terminology), and known as summer time in some countries, is the practice of advancing clocks during summer months so that evening daylight lasts longer, while sacrificing normal sunrise times."

"DST is generally not observed near the equator, where sunrise times do not vary enough to justify it. Some countries observe it only in some regions; for example, southern Brazil observes it while equatorial Brazil does not.[3] Only a minority of the world's population uses DST, because Asia and Africa generally do not observe it."

Daylight saving time is a convenience. It doesn't adjust or add to the length of a day. It just shifts the (arbitrary) start and end point, so that instead of centring on the highest point in the solar path, it is changed to give more light on the evening, by giving up light on the morning.

That's the reason why we adjust the clock for DST. And because the reason isn't a changing length of the day, any country or region can use or not-use daylight saving time, as they see fit.

You don't think that the day is suddenly one hour longer in regions with DST, do you?


Yes, but the problem here is that the observed values do not correspond with the values that the Flat Earth model would need.

What observed values? You just said there was none observed......

You say they don't correspond to the values the FE would need, but then many say they do......

The ratio between the northern and southern tropic on the Flat Earth is something about (roughly) 2 to 3. According to the formulas used in your source, the duration of a complete orbit would need to have the same ratio. But the observed ratio between longest and shortest solar day is only about 1.0007.
That is quite an observable difference.

No, the source is not calculating electric field changes into the equation, just magnetic flux ability to cause circular orbits. notice the source used the assumption of a "constant" velocity...... in order for the magnetic field to increase, the electric field must increase.....

And there is more. According to your source, a smaller orbit results in a shorter orbital period. That means on the Flat Earth, the solar day would be shorter in summer and longer in winter. But the observed data have two minima and maxima on the length of the solar day over a year: shorter at the equinoxes in both spring and autumn, longer at the solstices in both summer and winter.

No, no, it would be shorter in winter as the orbit is further away from the northern hemisphere, giving less light to that region, it varies from one orbit to the other, it is not a constant circular orbit throughout the year, hence two equinoxes every year as it crosses in an elliptical orbit from one area to the next. FE draw it circular for simplicity, not because it portrays the reality. Just as we model the planets rotation as circular. Not to match reality, but as an illustration for simplicity.

In another thread I said:

This is exactly what you are doing here: you are using the terminology of established science, but you ignore the content.

I'm not the one that draws circular orbits for our planets, but understands that is not reality, yet tries to hold FE to circular orbits because that is what they drew for representation, even if they understand it is not reality.....

Based on your previous attempts, I don't have high expectations that this will lead anywhere. But, please, enlighten us: what tests do you want to perform with these mirrors?

Very simple, show an example of a reflection from a flat mirror then one from a convex mirror of light. Now if the ocean is convex, then it's reflection should match that of a convex mirror and not the flat mirror...

Look at your own source material:
"The angular frequency of rotation of the particle (i.e., the number of radians the particle rotates through in one second) is: w =qB/m.
B is the magnetic field strength. So that is exactly what it says: the angular frequency is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength.

"Suppose that the particle moves, in an anti-clockwise manner, with constant speed v "

So the supposition assumes velocity does not change or the angular frequency will also change...... Simplicity. Things are done to simplify the math to get the point across. As orbits are simplified to circles to get the point across.......

You are confusing the angular velocity with the orbital velocity.
The angular velocity describes, as said in your source: "the angular frequency of rotation of the particle (i.e., the number of radians the particle rotates through in one second)"

So the angular velocity determines who long the particle takes to go through one full orbit based on the angles.

The orbital velocity describes how fast the object goes along the curve of the orbit. It determines how long the partical takes to go through a certain distance.

A full circle always has 360°, or 2pi rad, regardless of the radius of the circle. But the circumference of a circle gets bigger with the radius.

An object on a circular path has to travel a longer distance, and thus it needs to be faster if it is to complete the circle in the same time.

And hence for simplicity they "assumed the particle traveled with a constant velocity v. In reality we know nothing travels with a constant velocity. if the magnetic field strength changes, the electric field strength changes, therefore the velocity changes....... therefore the angular velocity, does what? Change?????

Stop assuming math that is simplified to get a point across is the entire situation...... it is simplified to a constant velocity v, because a changing velocity v would make it incredibly difficult to solve, and would not illustrate the point trying to be made....... without a person needing to take 20 pages to explain it.....

We talk of the earth traveling around the sun at a velocity of 70,000 mph. But in reality we know this is not a constant speed, but we solve for the equation as if it was a constant speed.....

 

[Freodin]

What observed values? You just said there was none observed......

This would be a language problem... and for once not resulting due to our different languages.

When the wiki article says that some countries do not "observe" DST, it uses "observe" in the meaning of "to follow a law or rite", not in the sense of "to watch carefully" or "to take note of".

DST is a convenience. For example, the current usage of DST (or "Sommerzeit") in Germany was implemented in 1979. The USA uses its current system since 1966.

So, do you think that the sun did move differently in Germany and the USA between 1966 and 1979?

You say they don't correspond to the values the FE would need, but then many say they do......

Then I propose that these "many" provide their data. But somehow I doubt the can do that.
And these observations are quite easy.
Take a device that measures and displays periodic events. We call this a "clock".
Note the point when the sun is in a certain point in the sky. Noon is usually a good and distinguishable point. Wait until the sun is in the same point on its course again.
The time between these two points is called a "day"... or to distinguish it more clearly from the other usages of this term: a "solar day". It's length is 24 hours. It is based on the rotational period of the earth... or, on the Flat Earth, one complete orbit of the sun.

When you do these observations at different times of the year, the length of that "day" doesn't change in any significant way. It is always 24 hours.

You don't need faster watches in winter, or slower watches in summer. When you switch one watch to DST, and keep another one on standard time, they will still run at the same speed. They will just show different times... but so do watches in different time zones.

But the length of a day is always the same.

This is an observation that we can make.

Now to say that the "length of a day is always the same" isn't completely correct.
The length of a day does indeed change over the year. This is for two reasons: because the earth's orbit around the sun in not circular and because the axis of the earth is tilted on its orbit.
This difference in lengths of a solar day can of course also be studied and observed. Over a year, the maximum difference between a "real solar day" and the median 24 h/86400 sec solar day is 30 seconds.

So let's turn over to the Flat Earth. On the summer solstice, the sun makes a circle exactly over the Tropic of Cancer. This is its "northernmost" position, and its smallest orbit. On the winter solstice, it is above the Tropic of Capricorn, the "southernmost" and largest orbit.
On the Flat Earth, the Tropic of Cancer is about 0.6 times the circumference of the Tropic of Capricorn.
With a constant orbital velocity, a solar day in the northern summer would have to be 0.6 times the length of a solar day in northern winter.

So, on the Globe Earth, the variation of the length of a day is about 30 seconds. On the Flat Earth, it is almost 10 hours.

No, the source is not calculating electric field changes into the equation, just magnetic flux ability to cause circular orbits. notice the source used the assumption of a "constant" velocity...... in order for the magnetic field to increase, the electric field must increase.....

That's why I asked you to include the electric field and its properties into your model.
What you are doing now is again just handwaving. Your old model does not work, so you just say "electric field" and assume that solves your problems.

But does it? What would that electric field have to look like to give the results you need? How would it behave?
Can we find observations to back up this model?

Here the answer is again: no.
In order to provide a periodic acceleration and decceleration of the orbiting sun, you need a rotating electrical field on the orbital plane. This alone contradicts the observed electrical field of the earth.

No, no, it would be shorter in winter as the orbit is further away from the northern hemisphere, giving less light to that region, it varies from one orbit to the other, it is not a constant circular orbit throughout the year, hence two equinoxes every year as it crosses in an elliptical orbit from one area to the next. FE draw it circular for simplicity, not because it portrays the reality. Just as we model the planets rotation as circular. Not to match reality, but as an illustration for simplicity.

And again you confuse your concepts. The "day" that I am talking about is the solar day... the rotational period of the earth (or, on the Flat Earth, the orbital period of the sun). This doesn't get shorter in (northern) winter. Only the "Light day"... the period of light vs. the period of darkness we call "night"... does get shorter.

I'm not the one that draws circular orbits for our planets, but understands that is not reality, yet tries to hold FE to circular orbits because that is what they drew for representation, even if they understand it is not reality.....

Well, I don't either. I just follow the examples you provided. The problem with angular and orbital velocity does not go away when you use eliptical orbits... just the math to describe the problem gets more complicated.

Very simple, show an example of a reflection from a flat mirror then one from a convex mirror of light. Now if the ocean is convex, then it's reflection should match that of a convex mirror and not the flat mirror...

I dare say that you ignore the scale of the whole system again, but, yes, basically you are correct.
Now how do you propose to set up an experiment to test this?

"Suppose that the particle moves, in an anti-clockwise manner, with constant speed v "

So the supposition assumes velocity does not change or the angular frequency will also change...... Simplicity. Things are done to simplify the math to get the point across. As orbits are simplified to circles to get the point across.......

That's why I asked you to include the electric field into your model.

And hence for simplicity they "assumed the particle traveled with a constant velocity v. In reality we know nothing travels with a constant velocity. if the magnetic field strength changes, the electric field strength changes, therefore the velocity changes....... therefore the angular velocity, does what? Change?????

Stop assuming math that is simplified to get a point across is the entire situation...... it is simplified to a constant velocity v, because a changing velocity v would make it incredibly difficult to solve, and would not illustrate the point trying to be made....... without a person needing to take 20 pages to explain it.....

We talk of the earth traveling around the sun at a velocity of 70,000 mph. But in reality we know this is not a constant speed, but we solve for the equation as if it was a constant speed.....

What you said before wasn't "simplified"... it was just false.

Yes, I will gladly grant you that the mathematics needed to describe the model that you imply - a sun orbiting over the earth in a spiral orbit, due to a cyclically changing magnetic and electric field - is a lot more complex.

But you can make some simple statements about such a system:
1. A charged particle in an electric field is accelerated in the direction of the field lines.
2. Thus, to get an acceleration on the orbital plane, the electric field must be parallel to the orbital plane.
3. A charged moving particle (for example one on a circular path due to a magnetic field) in an electric field will still be accelerated in the direction of the field lines. If the vector of movement is not parallel to the field lines, this will result in a curved path.
4. The observed path data of the sun do not conform with the assumption of a directionally constant electric field. Such would result in a difference of speed of the sun over a day... that is, the "light day" would be of different length in different longitudes.
5. Thus, this solar-orbit-parallel electric field has to rotate in sync with the sun.

Such a field isn't observed and there exist no theoretical models to explain its existence.

This model doesn't explain the real observations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This would be a language problem... and for once not resulting due to our different languages.

When the wiki article says that some countries do not "observe" DST, it uses "observe" in the meaning of "to follow a law or rite", not in the sense of "to watch carefully" or "to take note of".

DST is a convenience. For example, the current usage of DST (or "Sommerzeit") in Germany was implemented in 1979. The USA uses its current system since 1966.

So, do you think that the sun did move differently in Germany and the USA between 1966 and 1979?

Oh, so you used a language problem to try to hide the fact that the sun does move differently throughout the year????? Whether or Someone on the equator observes daylight savings time or not, the sun is going to rise at different times for them throughout the year. Now FE say it is because the sun moves on different diameters. Globe model says because the sun slows and speeds up. So in the globe model it is also because the earth moves on different diameters. A change in velocity necessitates a change in orbital parameters.... Likewise a change in orbital parameters in FE necessitates a change in velocity.....

Then I propose that these "many" provide their data. But somehow I doubt the can do that.
And these observations are quite easy.
Take a device that measures and displays periodic events. We call this a "clock".
Note the point when the sun is in a certain point in the sky. Noon is usually a good and distinguishable point. Wait until the sun is in the same point on its course again.
The time between these two points is called a "day"... or to distinguish it more clearly from the other usages of this term: a "solar day". It's length is 24 hours. It is based on the rotational period of the earth... or, on the Flat Earth, one complete orbit of the sun.

When you do these observations at different times of the year, the length of that "day" doesn't change in any significant way. It is always 24 hours.

No, your clock measures 24 hours. Throughout the course of the year the sun WILL NOT align itself with the pole any longer at the same time. It will be noon, a few months later 12:15, etc...... The length of the day varies throughout the year..... hence we observe daylight savings time to compensate for the suns motion (or earth rotation and orbit) and the actual length of a "clocks" 24 hour day.

Go get a Farmers Almanac. It will tell you sunrise and sunset for any place for the year. Now if sunrise and sunset varies are you going to try to tell me noon always stays the same???????

You don't need faster watches in winter, or slower watches in summer. When you switch one watch to DST, and keep another one on standard time, they will still run at the same speed. They will just show different times... but so do watches in different time zones.

But the length of a day is always the same.

Your length of a 24 hour day has nothing to do with sunrise or sunset..... which varies throughout the year. So much so that in order to keep up with the sun's motions we must move them forward and set them back each year. Stop thinking your clocks is the sun. You adjust your clocks, you don't adjust the sun.....

This is an observation that we can make.

And we have and have observed that we need to adjust our clocks forwards and backwards every year in order to keep them synced with solar time.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time

"A tall pole vertically fixed in the ground casts a shadow on any sunny day. At one moment during the day, the shadow will point exactly north or south (or disappear when and if the Sun moves directly overhead). That instant is local apparent noon, or 12:00 local apparent time. About 24 hours later the shadow will again point north/south, the Sun seeming to have covered a 360-degree arc around the Earth's axis. When the Sun has covered exactly 15 degrees (1/24 of a circle, both angles being measured in a plane perpendicular to the Earth's axis), local apparent time is 13:00 exactly; after 15 more degrees it will be 14:00 exactly.

The problem is that in September the Sun takes less time (as measured by an accurate clock) to make an apparent revolution than it does in December; 24 "hours" of solar time can be 21 seconds less or 29 seconds more than 24 hours of clock time. As explained in the equation of time article, this is due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit (i.e. the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular, meaning that the Earth-Sun distance varies throughout the year), and the fact that the Earth's axis is not perpendicular to the plane of its orbit (the so-called obliquity of the ecliptic).

The effect of this is that a clock running at a constant rate – e.g. completing the same number of pendulum swings in each hour – cannot follow the actual Sun; instead it follows an imaginary "mean Sun" that moves along the celestial equator at a constant rate that matches the real Sun's average rate over the year.[1] This is "mean solar time", which is still not perfectly constant from one century to the next but is close enough for most purposes. Currently a mean solar day is about 86,400.002 SI seconds.[2]

The two kinds of solar time (apparent solar time and mean solar time) are among the three kinds of time reckoning that were employed by astronomers until the 1950s. (The third kind of traditional time reckoning is sidereal time, which is based on the apparent motions of stars other than the Sun.)[3] By the 1950s it had become clear that the Earth's rotation rate was not constant, so astronomers developed ephemeris time, a time scale based on the positions of solar system bodies in their orbits."

Now to say that the "length of a day is always the same" isn't completely correct.
The length of a day does indeed change over the year. This is for two reasons: because the earth's orbit around the sun in not circular and because the axis of the earth is tilted on its orbit.
This difference in lengths of a solar day can of course also be studied and observed. Over a year, the maximum difference between a "real solar day" and the median 24 h/86400 sec solar day is 30 seconds."

So let's turn over to the Flat Earth. On the summer solstice, the sun makes a circle exactly over the Tropic of Cancer. This is its "northernmost" position, and its smallest orbit. On the winter solstice, it is above the Tropic of Capricorn, the "southernmost" and largest orbit.
On the Flat Earth, the Tropic of Cancer is about 0.6 times the circumference of the Tropic of Capricorn.
With a constant orbital velocity, a solar day in the northern summer would have to be 0.6 times the length of a solar day in northern winter.

So, on the Globe Earth, the variation of the length of a day is about 30 seconds. On the Flat Earth, it is almost 10 hours.

Agreed, but the variation on a globe earth is due to its variation of speed in its orbit, which you refuse to adjust for in the FE model but insist it remain constant......

That's why I asked you to include the electric field and its properties into your model.
What you are doing now is again just handwaving. Your old model does not work, so you just say "electric field" and assume that solves your problems.

Don't blame me because you didn't bother to read the page before the one shown to you......

But does it? What would that electric field have to look like to give the results you need? How would it behave?
Can we find observations to back up this model?

Absolutely..... All magnetic fields are generated by electric currents.... If the magnetic field increases or decreases the electric current must increase or decrease first.....

Here the answer is again: no.
In order to provide a periodic acceleration and decceleration of the orbiting sun, you need a rotating electrical field on the orbital plane. This alone contradicts the observed electrical field of the earth.

That is so wrong it doesn't even deserve an answer, but I'll answer it anyways. Particle accelerators do not use rotating electric fields............... the use stationary electric fields. They then use "ring" magnets to direct the particle motion.

And again you confuse your concepts. The "day" that I am talking about is the solar day... the rotational period of the earth (or, on the Flat Earth, the orbital period of the sun). This doesn't get shorter in (northern) winter. Only the "Light day"... the period of light vs. the period of darkness we call "night"... does get shorter.

"24 "hours" of solar time can be 21 seconds less or 29 seconds more than 24 hours of clock time."

Well, I don't either. I just follow the examples you provided. The problem with angular and orbital velocity does not go away when you use eliptical orbits... just the math to describe the problem gets more complicated.

Agreed, or we could both easily calculate a changing velocity and show the angular velocity changed as well, to a degree of 21 seconds to 29 seconds more or less......

I dare say that you ignore the scale of the whole system again, but, yes, basically you are correct.
Now how do you propose to set up an experiment to test this?

Being neither of us has the money to construct a large enough concave mirror. But even in small concave mirrors one can see the reflection of light is not the same as on a flat mirror. That it is the flat mirror that matches water reflections....

That's why I asked you to include the electric field into your model.

What you said before wasn't "simplified"... it was just false.

Yes, I will gladly grant you that the mathematics needed to describe the model that you imply - a sun orbiting over the earth in a spiral orbit, due to a cyclically changing magnetic and electric field - is a lot more complex.

So I presented the basics hoping you would understand that the reality is a lot more complex than either one of us is capable of calculating, but the basics gets the point across.....

But you can make some simple statements about such a system:
1. A charged particle in an electric field is accelerated in the direction of the field lines.

Which would be away from the north and south poles

2. Thus, to get an acceleration on the orbital plane, the electric field must be parallel to the orbital plane.

As it is in a solenoid...

3. A charged moving particle (for example one on a circular path due to a magnetic field) in an electric field will still be accelerated in the direction of the field lines. If the vector of movement is not parallel to the field lines, this will result in a curved path.
4. The observed path data of the sun do not conform with the assumption of a directionally constant electric field. Such would result in a difference of speed of the sun over a day... that is, the "light day" would be of different length in different longitudes.
5. Thus, this solar-orbit-parallel electric field has to rotate in sync with the sun.

Such a field isn't observed and there exist no theoretical models to explain its existence.

This model doesn't explain the real observations.

I shouldn't need to say more. The electric field is circular, just as the magnetic field is in a solenoid, which produces the magnetic field we measure for the earth, out of one pole and into another....

 

[Freodin]

Oh, so you used a language problem to try to hide the fact that the sun does move differently throughout the year????? Whether or Someone on the equator observes daylight savings time or not, the sun is going to rise at different times for them throughout the year. Now FE say it is because the sun moves on different diameters. Globe model says because the sun slows and speeds up. So in the globe model it is also because the earth moves on different diameters. A change in velocity necessitates a change in orbital parameters.... Likewise a change in orbital parameters in FE necessitates a change in velocity.....

No, your clock measures 24 hours. Throughout the course of the year the sun WILL NOT align itself with the pole any longer at the same time. It will be noon, a few months later 12:15, etc...... The length of the day varies throughout the year..... hence we observe daylight savings time to compensate for the suns motion (or earth rotation and orbit) and the actual length of a "clocks" 24 hour day.

Go get a Farmers Almanac. It will tell you sunrise and sunset for any place for the year. Now if sunrise and sunset varies are you going to try to tell me noon always stays the same???????

Are you for real? This is a joke, right? You went on to quote the wiki on solar time... and you still asking this nonsense?

Sorry, I found it quite interesting to discuss the physical problems with the Flat Earth model, but if you cannot be serious, there is no reason to continue this.

 

[Freodin]

That is so wrong it doesn't even deserve an answer, but I'll answer it anyways. Particle accelerators do not use rotating electric fields............... the use stationary electric fields. They then use "ring" magnets to direct the particle motion.

Just for those who are interested in the real physics instead of Justajokemaker's parody version:
Particle accelerators use oscillating electric fields... fields that periodically change the polarity, in synchronization with the path of the particles. That assures that the particles are always accelerated exactly at the point when they pass through the electric field.

It is quite obvious that a static electric field could not achive this for a particle on a circular path, because any acceleration that the particles experiences at the point where its path is aligned with the electric field would be countered by an equal decceleration at the opposite point in the circular path.

In a classical clyclotron, this results in a non-constant acceleration. The particle gets to short phases of acceleration, followed by phases of constant velocity passing through a half circular path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron

For a constant acceleration, you would need a rotating electric field. In practice, this is much to inefficient to build... but as on a Flat Earth a rotating electric field would have to be powered by magic in the same way as an oscillating field, it is just as feasable.