Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sunrise/Sunset is off by 16 minutes since 1861 Farmer's Almanac Published

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


so i have been in roughly the same region from my childhood to adult hood with a couple of years here and there in different regions. But i do know as a child i kept an eye on the sunset because that dictated when i would have to come home, when i was i kid the sun light would go away around 830ish and be dark dark around 9. This was during the peak of summer time. Over the past two or three years i have noticed it getting dark dark at around 915-930. The only difference in my global position from now and 20 years ago is about 100 miles and a drop of elevation of about 3000 feet. Im thinking the elevation change may have something to do about it, but im no scientist,

Although I was just recently back at my point of origin and i noticed the sunlight go away around 850 and dark dark come at around the same time as it does at lower elevation 100 miles away. So to me it seems the sun is out longer than usual, i cant vouch for sunrise though ive always been sleeping. Can you provide info that would pertain to this observation




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Since science has yet to find a real explanation as to why the earth is tilted in the first place, I think that small changes like that is a possibility. I wouldn't think it is anything to worry about....unless

Is it possible that the crystalline ore deposits form the tilt of the earth and could mining of these deposits cause the earth to shift position gradually. The more we destroy these geomagnetic crystals, the more possible change. I know that magnetite, diamond, and jasper have effects like this but could other crystalline formations also effect it. Since, because of economic motives, no real research has ever been done I doubt if there will be any evidence or research on this hypothesis. If this is true, the earth could shift it's axis in a number of ways after an equalibrium point has been reached. It could be good for some and real bad for beings living here on earth, depending on where you live.

Just a guess to try to explain possibilities, there is no evidence of this anywhere that I can find. Worry about things you can do something about in your life, otherwise your life will be miserable.
edit on 9-7-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 


I've noticed this too. My own opinion is that it's the sun being brighter, so our skies stay illuminated longer, even after the sun goes down, or comes up.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That's a great theory. All matter in the universe is composed of little magnets, why not crystals? They seem to want to focus energy. Thanks for the food for thought.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Most rocks have a magnetic orientation.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Take a look one more time:



It's for Boston and all of New England.

Now what area was the charts drawn up for? Boston? DC? New York?

It doesn't say....except that the book is for Boston AND New England.

Where was the chart made at? From what Latitude or Longitude? The book doesn't show that.

But I bet some real research and foot work just might.

However, you just posted that unless you can instantly access data from the internet.....then you're going to say it doesn't prove anything? Are you really going to say that here? On a internet site that prides itself from denying ignorance? A site that in most of it's forums members demand proof and research?

So, are you going to actually research it? Or are you instead going to rely on a chart of unknown origin, in a book published back in the 1860's, which shows a chart for sunrise and sunset, but not the Lat and Long for that chart, instead of what was actually observed.....and continue to using insults in your posts?

Some advice: do the research, loose the insults, else you won't last very long around here on ATS.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I've always had certain fascinations since a kid that I can't explain. One was with water, much like Tolkien had with his deluge dreams.

The other is with rocks. Most people don't understand rock collections. They're just rocks after all lol

I say pick up a rock, there's your reminder of doom right there. In the form of rapidly moving water and instantly created mountains and canyons...when the Earth has finally had enough.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Take a look one more time:



It's for Boston and all of New England.

Now what area was the charts drawn up for? Boston? DC? New York?

It doesn't say....except that the book is for Boston AND New England.

Where was the chart made at? From what Latitude or Longitude? The book doesn't show that.

But I bet some real research and foot work just might.

However, you just posted that unless you can instantly access data from the internet.....then you're going to say it doesn't prove anything? Are you really going to say that here? On a internet site that prides itself from denying ignorance? A site that in most of it's forums members demand proof and research?

So, are you going to actually research it? Or are you instead going to rely on a chart of unknown origin, in a book published back in the 1860's, which shows a chart for sunrise and sunset, but not the Lat and Long for that chart, instead of what was actually observed.....and continue to using insults in your posts?

Some advice: do the research, loose the insults, else you won't last very long around here on ATS.


No insults to "loose". Please look at your own picture. It's for Boston.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
You two are arguing semantics in an "I'm more obtuse than you" war. Yes, it's "fitted for Boston' BUT will answer for ALL New England States.

Therefore, it's a best guess estimate based on whatever clock they used, which was NOT set to Greenwich Mean Time. We have no idea what the actual time was, based on this fact alone. Further, this almanac "answers" for all the New England states, which means, as far the almanac is concerned, the sun rose and set at the exact same time in the Boston harbor and in the far west of Pennsylvania, which we know is bunk.

Based on these facts, why bother using this as almanac as proof of anything?

Have you ever looked at one of those Farmer's Almanacs? They are full of bad data, including predictions that it will rain on Monday, May 18th. (example only, I just made that up). So are we to believe that it did indeed rain on that day, even though the almanac was published many moths earlier?
edit on 9-7-2013 by usernameconspiracy because: ydda yadda yadda



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


And yet, two lines underneath the date "Fitted for Boston, and all the New England states". You seem to have stopped reading when you got to Boston.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


And yet, two lines underneath the date "Fitted for Boston, and all the New England states". You seem to have stopped reading when you got to Boston.


You didn't quote correctly. See my reply above.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


It doesn't matter, it is for the entirety of New England.

But here, just for you:

"Fitted for Boston, but will answer for all the New England states".



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


It doesn't matter, it is for the entirety of New England.

But here, just for you:

"Fitted for Boston, but will answer for all the New England states".


corrected, for you.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Can you post some definitive evidence that the clock used to derive the Almanac's time were accurate and true in comparison to global standardized times?

Yea.....

As has been pointed out repeatedly...there is no way to compare the time in the Almanac with today, we have no comparison points to work with. We have data A and data B...on different scales...how do we compare?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


I thought that answer had already been given with the 24 minute deviation with Washington DC back then.

Again, this still leaves quite a deviation. And if none on here can account for it, then that's pretty telling and the ramifications are huge.

Scrambling to find answers? You betcha.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


It doesn't matter, it is for the entirety of New England.

But here, just for you:

"Fitted for Boston, but will answer for all the New England states".


corrected, for you.


So we are to simply ignore the inconvenient fact that is WILL ANSWER FOR ALL THE NEW ENGLAND STATES? Are we to ignore that according to the almanac, the sun rose at precisely the same time in various parts of the New England states, and we know that this is not even remotely true?

Are we to ignore what everyone has been trying to tell you for three full pages now? That there was no standard time to go as there is now? That once we adjusted to Greenwich mean Time, that fact, in and of itself, may very well explain the entirety of your "missing time"?

Or are you just going to keep saying, "But this one goes to eleven." (I hope someone get's that)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Don't worry, I did.

And apparently, yes we are, because apparently Boston was the center of everything and the only place that mattered.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by peck420
 


I thought that answer had already been given with the 24 minute deviation with Washington DC back then.

Again, this still leaves quite a deviation. And if none on here can account for it, then that's pretty telling and the ramifications are huge.

Scrambling to find answers? You betcha.


It has been answered, just not by you.

And, no, the ramifications aren't really that huge at all. Whether I start my day at 5:00 am in current time, or 5:24 am in 1861 Boston time makes no difference to me. It is nothing more than a label that we use to keep time straight in our heads.

The time between sunrise and sunset is what is important. And that hasn't changed by any noticeable amount.

So what does that tell us?

A) That the rotation/speed/distance to centre of our planet to the sun hasn't changed significantly.

and

B) That we still keep tabs of time on a 24 hour day, 60 minute hour, 60 second minute.

Monumental!






top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join