It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Calm down, relax, and then look at the subject again and the title again of the almanac and where it is fitted to. There's no shame in admitting one's wrong. Hell, I do it often. So far though I'm not convinced.

Those that can't admit to being wrong though...well there's a problem with those individuals who think they know everything isn't there?

But if in the end you still don't get it, that's fine. Go outside and enjoy a latte. You'll feel better.




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


Except that according to the Almanac, while it's fitted for Boston, it also covers the rest of New England too. So what everyone has said, and apparently everyone but you sees, is that while it's set for Boston, it also claims that the times will be the same in all of New England. And it's not true.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

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!


Minamilization is what many folks do, to try and not get us to understand the severity of what we're in. And that's waist full of shi* !

There's a C:

C) The continents are shifting.

At least. a C.. If you want I can think of a few others I'm sure.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Minamilization is what many folks do, to try and not get us to understand the severity of what we're in. And that's waist full of shi* !

There's a C:

C) The continents are shifting.

At least. a C.. If you want I can think of a few others I'm sure.


Yup, nobody has noticed the continents shifting.

The thousands upon thousands of people that would be aware of it (as they cross continents daily) are all in on the conspiracy.

May I suggest upgrading to 0.050 aluminium? Tin foil doesn't seem to cut it for you.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Well point of correction: a tin foil hat would actually make it easier for others to get inside your mind, but you probably already knew that being on a conspiracy board. I mean, what kind of conspirator would you call yourself if you didn't know this fact? sheesh

It doesn't have to be off by much, and localized shifting can also occur. Just try and think a bit more than simplistically and not geared for the strawman crowd.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

C) The continents are shifting.


Well, at least you are not wrong about that. The problem is, the continents are always shifting. Always have. That's why we have earthquakes. Are they shifting at a pace as to lose almost 30 minutes of time in less than 200 years? No.

Also, the entire continent would be shifting towards the West, not just one area. How much movement do you think is needed to shift sunrise by 24 minutes? Quite a bit. I would suggest (in the time period you provided) at such a rate as to be pretty catastrophic.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Well point of correction: a tin foil hat would actually make it easier for others to get inside your mind, but you probably already knew that being on a conspiracy board. I mean, what kind of conspirator would you call yourself if you didn't know this fact? sheesh


Can I quote you for my response?


Originally posted by CircleOfDust
I hear a whooshing sound above your head.


Back to business!


Originally posted by CircleOfDust
It doesn't have to be off by much, and localized shifting can also occur. Just try and think a bit more than simplistically and not geared for the strawman crowd.


See post above. Add in that science refutes your claim. Deal with it and move on.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Yes, they're always shifting, but one can also say that the magnetic north pole is always shifting.

Except it's gotten much faster lately, hasn't it.

24 minutes is just the time difference between DC and Boston back then. Not the discrepancy between sunrise/sunset times of now and then.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Well point of correction: a tin foil hat would actually make it easier for others to get inside your mind, but you probably already knew that being on a conspiracy board. I mean, what kind of conspirator would you call yourself if you didn't know this fact? sheesh


Can I quote you for my response?


Originally posted by CircleOfDust
I hear a whooshing sound above your head.


Back to business!


Originally posted by CircleOfDust
It doesn't have to be off by much, and localized shifting can also occur. Just try and think a bit more than simplistically and not geared for the strawman crowd.


See post above. Add in that science refutes your claim. Deal with it and move on.


You must be a pilot too.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
24 minutes is just the time difference between DC and Boston back then. Not the discrepancy between sunrise/sunset times of now and then.

... the time difference between two cities based on a wind-up pocket watch?
Were there two watches or one?
Were they calibrated to each other or to something else?
What is the accuracy of that watch?
What was the accuracy of the calibration source(s)?
What was the method and calculations used to determine the time difference?
Did someone set their watch in Greenwich, travel by boat to Boston, then train to D.C and just time it?
Did they send telegraphs between the two points?
What's the propagation delay of the telegraph system they used?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I'm assuming you meant this for Phage since he introduced the comparison image between DC and Boston.

But just to add, if they didn't use wind up pocket watches as you say, would that render all your questions obsolete?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I think the wobble has a lot to do with thaws of the poles, and ice ages overall.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


I like your mind.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
This is easily solved with some simple arithmetic and knowing the longitude of the place you're interested in..
Greenwich England is at 0° Longitude.
Boston is at 71.0603° W Longitude.
The actual time in Boston, as opposed to the Eastern Standard Time, can be figured out as follows:

71.0603°/360°=0.197390
0.197390*24 hrs=4.73735 hrs or 4 hrs 44.2 mins behind Greenwich

The Eastern Standard Time zone is 5 hrs behind Greenwich. The difference is approx. 16 mins. So when it is 12 noon in the EST, it would actually be 12:16 in Boston if you set your clocks to read noon when the sun was at its highest point.

Doing the same calculation for Washington DC (at 77.0300° W) works out to 5.13533 hrs or 5 hrs 8.1 mins behind Greenwich for a difference of approx. 8 mins. So Washington is actually at 11:52 AM when it is noon in the EST.

The difference between Boston and Washington is 24 mins, as stated in the linked comparative time-table.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 


Thanks for the info. I'll check the calculations tomorrow. but seems good at first blush.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I'm assuming you meant this for Phage since he introduced the comparison image between DC and Boston.

If I were replying the Phage, I would have quoted him.


But just to add, if they didn't use wind up pocket watches as you say, would that render all your questions obsolete?

I didn't say they used wind up pocket watches; I asked.

Since you couldn't answer that, I presume you do not know and therefore cannot support your arguments.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 


One of the furthest points west in the Eastern Time Zone is Atikokan Ontario at 91.6382° W. When it is noon EST, the sun still has an hour to go before it reaches its highest point in the sky there as it is just over 6 hrs behind GMT.

Seems strange that it would be in the Eastern Time Zone rather than in the Central.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Welcome to an expanding universe



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Well your whole line of fanciful argument has been rendered obsolete by erwalker's data.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join