It's also interesting to see that a lot of them are just copy & pasted from "Earth Not A Globe" and many others are from other sources -- I begin to doubt that Dubay came up with a single one of these himself.
Here is the video version of Dubay's '200 proofs' (NOTE: Dubay got himself delete for hate speech so I'm now linking to a mirror [original]):
Before I get started, when you see someone claiming 'Proof' you should immediately be wary because science doesn't deal in proofs. Proof is done in a formal way in mathematics and there is a colloquial sense of 'proof' where the evidence supports the conclusion - but whenever someone says they have 'proved' something they are usually wrong and are being misleading either out of ignorance or malice (as we will see over and over and over again as Dubay's "proof" fails 200 times in a row).
Next is a Scientific Law, which is based on repeatable measurements where all known variance is accounted for (but even Laws can change, Newton's Law of Gravity gave way in light of measurements under extreme conditions and now support Relativity). All Laws come with error bars and a bounding box under which they have been tested, more accurate measurements or measurements outside the realm in which the Law is known to hold can show deviations and lead to new Laws. But the new Law has to be compatible with the old Law -- under normal, everyday conditions without going to extremes of measurement, Relativity simplifies to Newtonian physics. And we still use Newton's equations.
A Scientific Theory does not become a Scientific Law -- these are in entirely different categories.
Nothing in science is sacred -- not even the shape of the Earth. If someone can prove that all of science has it wrong by a repeatable observation that isn't accounted for by known and demonstrable phenomena then fine -- the Earth can be Flat for all I care. What matters is the evidence you bring to the table...
And despite these multiple hour long diatribes no Flat Earther has ever shown even a single bit of evidence that contradicts the Heliocentric/Globe model or shows a violation of accepted physics.
Not Once.
This is why the proponents of Flat Earth are relegated to the dark corners of social media with most people pointing and laughing.
Other Dubay debunkings:
200 Proofs debunked (video), in 28 minutes
http://200proofsearthisnotflat.blogspot.com/
http://roundearthsense.blogspot.com/
So, here we go... 200 PROOFS!
1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.
Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry, Unevidenced Assertion
This debunks itself -- a truly flat horizon would, as Dubay's false images suggest, extend infinitely off left and right and could simply not curve around you 360°. But even Dubay says it's "360 degrees around the observer"! HINT.
The reason that the Horizon curvature, which curves around you, "looks flat" is because you are viewing it on edge. Dubay and other Flat Earthers do not actually understand the geometry of a Horizon on a Spheroid. See: Flat Earth Faux Pas : What Is The Horizon?
I'll unpack this in more detail here since this claim is really their linchpin.
The horizon is the green circle in this image -- this is formed where the observer line-of-sight falls tangent to the sphere:
In this example the viewer would be thousands of miles up. Below is what this looks like to someone 35k feet up in an airplane. That angle is still only around 3° and you're looking at a circle 229 miles away -- and you can still see only a very tiny portion of Earths' surface. You do not see the 'limbs of the Earth' here -- the Earth is not expected to curve downwards, the horizon curves around the observer. This is a simple fact of spheroids.
Walter Bislin has an incredible horizon rendering tool you should check out. It will, given altitude, field of view, and other parameters show you what you should see. From 10 km (32k feet) you might see something like this using a 50mm lens:
That's going to "look flat" to just about anyone, especially with atmospheric haze making a sharp horizon unlikely at that distance. See that Eye-Level marker? We can measure that drop... The green reticle in the image below marks out level from my position using a Theodolite app on my phone also. I'm a bit higher, 38,800 feet so the angle to the horizon is about 3.4°.
See: Flat Earth Follies: The Horizon Always Rises To Eye Level
As for his claim "All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high." I don't even see how he can state that with a straight face since it is objectively, factually incorrect.
I get that a lot of balloon footage uses curvilinear (fish-eye) lenses and that Flat Earthers cannot think past "CURVE BAD! PICK FLAT FRAME" but we've shown over and over and over that a fish-eye lens compresses the visual field such that everything is bowed away from center (or pulled in from the edges). So any image where the curvature is convex that is bowing towards center of lens proves Earth's curvature. Ideally the horizon peak is just touching center of the lens and then all distortion is minimized.
I've also shown this in my analysis of the Rotaflight Balloon footage in an additional way -- we can see the curvature growing with altitude when we place the horizon in the same place (peak dead center of lens). This rules out the lens as the cause of curvature.
up
and up
And we can simply de-fish the images (I recommend GIMP) -- notice how this (slightly) increases the horizon curvature? This is because the fisheye effect had squished our edges upwards reducing the apparent curvature.
One of the many ways Flat Earthers use these types of images to misrepresent reality, is that they either cherry pick a frame where the horizon is outside lens center (and thus it looks fairly flat) or they apply ridiculous amounts of lens correction until it looks flat and then crop off the horribly distorted portions -- they don't ever tell you why the horizon needs to pass through the center or apply the correct fisheye correction:
But we can even see this in Rob Skiba's own balloon video shows curvature exactly as we expect it to -- even when his lower camera is non-fisheye. We will see more examples as we go.
Finally, "Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos." is just an assertion. Flat Earthers cannot demonstrate this. They like to point to images where NASA themselves told everyone how they were made by modeling satellite data as fakes but I'm sorry -- where NASA has told you how they created the images it's not a fake, it's not a fraud, it's not evidence of a conspiracy... it's simply an image they were excited to create from low-earth orbit satellite data at a time when we did not have full frame, color image cameras to give us similar images of the Earth. We have those nows in the form of DSCOVR:EPIC, Himawari-8, Himawari-9, and now GOES-16 as well.
So basically nothing Dubay says in point #1 is true. If we're being generous he is seriously confused and his bias is leading him to false conclusions.
2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.
Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry, Horizon Rises to Eye-Level
The horizon does not "rise to eye-level", this claim is refuted here: Flat Earth Follies: The Horizon Always Rises To Eye Level
There is nothing in the images given that proves that Dubay's red line marks out level from the observer.
The Dogcam footage also very clearly shows curvature and since Dubay is appealing to this footage as PROOF I assume he will accept that the Earth is curved based on this same footage?
Of course, I didn't fake my evidence, this is a screenshot straight from the video and it very clearly shows a curved horizon.
I've also done a deep dive on this footage and added a lot of detail about these shots.
See: Analysis: Dogcam footage - Does the "hotspot" proves a Flat Earth?
Taxonomy: Level3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
According to the Earth Science of Geodesy 'Level' is defined as perpendicular to Plumb, and Plumb simply follows Gravity which wobbles a bit due to the density of the Earth not being uniform.
 |
| Scale is exaggerated Image credit: NOAA: Datums, Heights, and Geodesy |
| Rotating Sphere of Water in Microgravity |
Dubay here never shows you how to calculate the effect size of any spinning or other forces, he just makes assertions appealing to false 'common sense' hoping you don't know how it actually works.
See: Flat Earth Follies: But you would fly off the Earth due to spinning
See: Water Finds Its Level - Ocean surface topography reveals ocean floor topography
See: Soundly Shows Flat Earthers The Curve
4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.Taxonomy: Gravity
You are going to see this one a lot.
Dubay has lied to you about how Gravity works. Under the influence of Gravity, 'down' is simply towards the center of the Earth -- it has nothing to do with North, South, East, or West.
And we know Gravity exists because #1 things Fall, #2 even things of different mass fall at the same rate, #3 this rate matches F=GMm/r² which gives us F=m * g (where g is ~9.8m/s² around the surface of the Earth), #4 gravity cannot be shielded, #5 gravity accelerates mass without registering on an accelerometer -- unlike every other force.
See: Flat Earth Follies: Blowing Gravity Out Of The Water!
See: Flat Earth Follies: 10 Point Flat Earth Meme "Not a Spinning Ball"
See: How Compton computed Latitude, direction to North, and length of a day
Taxonomy: Gravity5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers
Duplicate of #4
Taxonomy: Level6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.
Dubay has his facts completely reversed here, every measurement shows Earth curvature and he just wants to distort those facts.
This 8" x miles^2 equation is, in fact, only an estimate that works for shorter distances. You can trivially see that this equation is a parabola and not a circular curve so that should clue you in.
But the most egregious error using this formula is that it does not account for observer height so it does not tell you how much of some distant object is hidden by the horizon. Even a trivial diagram shows that an elevated observer can see further over a spheroid.
And second most egregious is that it ignores refraction which can be hugely variable, as shown here:
 |
| From Joshua Nowicki YouTube Video |
The most famous of this being debunked is when Wallace proved the Earth curvature at the Old Bedford Level where Samuel Birley Rowbotham himself had supposedly "proved the flatness" by failing to account for refraction (despite clearly quoting from Britannica talking about refraction in his book!)
See: Old Bedford Level
Here is some standing water
See: Soundly Shows Flat Earthers The Curve
7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.Taxonomy: Earth Curvature, Unevidenced Assertion
It's just that many civil engineering projects, even over long distances, do not need to directly calculate or care about Earth curvature. If you measure 150 miles in Google Earth as the distance and you buy material for 150 miles of track then you have already accounted for curvature. The survey distance already accounts for curvature. The engineering team doesn't need to DO anything else.
However, some engineering projects are well documented as being required to take Earth curvature into account (building SLAC and LIGO projects are example).
For an example, I'll share this little Flat Earth lie, as it contradicts Dubay too.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature, Level, Unevidenced Assertion8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
Duplicate claim -- sea-level is expected to be nearly constant around a Globe, varying only with the local gravity and that is exactly what we find.
Go look at the survey data, it will be curved.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature, Unevidenced Assertion9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
What kind of engineer doesn't understand that adding distance dropping down from a tangent would not be the same as the additional distance for curvature? That's obviously two very different things:
Furthermore, If you've already measured the distance as 30 miles then it's 30 miles, you don't need to add anything additional for curvature, you already measured it.
Taxonomy: Level10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.
Duplicate claim. Nope, it would curve along with the surface of the curved water and above and below mean relative to the curved Earth Geoid.
Taxonomy: Level11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”
Duplicate. Once again, up and down are relative to gravity and, in fact, define level.
As you follow the curvature of the Earth you are going neither up nor down.
Up is when you get further from the center of the Earth and down is when you get closer to the center of the Earth.
Also an obvious fabrication as trains go up and down hills all the time. Tracks are not level or straight and vary much greater than the Earth's curvature.
12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earthTaxonomy: Level
I can only find this 'source' in Flat Earth circles but that is irrelevant as it contains its own undoing - "nominally" means "in name only; officially though perhaps not in reality". It means they can mostly ignore the effects of curvature for whatever scale of work they are doing and treat it AS IF it is horizontal.
The WGS 84 datum surface is, in fact, an oblate spheroid (ellipsoid). Distances are already computed with this curvature - so you don't need to 'make allowances' for curvature when such allowances are already made in the datum you are using.
13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!Taxonomy: Earth Curvature, Unevidenced Assertion
Confuses the curvature drop, which doesn't take into account observer height, with estimates of what we could see at some distance (which must include observer height). Also ignores the fact that due to scattering in the atmosphere, lights can be seen much further away than you can see the light source itself.
At what elevation was this observation made? He left that out. How high was the light? He left that out. How was it verified that we're seeing the actual light and not simply scattering of the light? He left that out.
At 1900 feet your horizon is about 53 miles away -- if both parties are at 1900 feet and 100 miles apart they would be expected to be able to see each other. If one is a little higher the other can be a little lower.
Can Dubay (or anyone) show me the detailed evidence supporting this claim?
14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature, Unevidenced Assertion
Duplicate of #13.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
Actually they simply adjust their elevator trim for zero vertical speed and this automatically causes the plane to rotate to compensate for the curvature of the Earth.
See: Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation16) The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.
Complete misrepresentation of Airy's experiment and the implications. What Airy, and Michelson-Morley, showed was there is no aether that we are moving through.
Michelson-Gale-Pearson, Sagnac, Compton, et al. proved Earth's motion around the Sun and Rotation about an axis. The observed annual stellar aberration, or apparent motion of celestial objects about their true positions, is dependent on the velocity of the observer which also proves the Earth is moving. What finally accounted for all observations is Einstein's Relativity.
Taxonomy: Stellar Brightness17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.
All this 'proves' is that there aren't infinitely many evenly distributed stars.
18) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation
Duplicate of #16
19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.Taxonomy: Angular Physics Strawman, Factual Error
This one is hilarious because parallax isn't measured in inches -- it is an angular measurement in degrees or radians. Did Dubay tell you how to find the expected shift in position given some distance moved? It is: (2*arctan(size/2/distance)). We defined the Parsec unit based on this in fact. A parallax angle of 1 arc second at a size of 1 AU.
This might look fancy but this is just based on a simple slope calculation, or RISE (1/2 the total size) over RUN (the distance), which gives us our half-angle, which we double to get the total angular size. This is one-in-the-same as the law of Perspective:
You'll see me use 2*arctan(size/2/distance) several times throughout my rebuttal so it would be good to spend some time to understand how and why this works. There is also a handy angular diameter calculator. One caution is that you need to find the 'size' that is perpendicular to your line of vision, it's not always the simple height of the object. You'll see in one case I compensate for the small 'tilt' of the object, but we show that it's insignificant.
That gives us 1" = 2*arctan(1au/2/distance) -- so we can solve for distance = 1au/(2*tan(1"/2)) and find that our distance is ~206264.8 AU or ~3.26 light years away -- this is 1 Parsec, aka, the distance at which a 1 au shift gives a parallax angle of 1 arc second (1").
The Hipparcos mission has measured the annular parallax of over 120,000 stars to 1/1000th of an arcsecond.
Stars also move around aside from parallax. This claim is just complete fabrication on Dubay's part.
This also ignores that we're moving around the galaxy with those nearby stars so our relative motion is not nearly the same as our speed around the galaxy, etc.
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation20) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west. In actual fact, however, whenever this has been tested, vertically-fired cannonballs shoot upwards an average of 14 seconds ascending, 14 seconds descending, and fall back to the ground no more than 2 feet away from the cannon, often directly back into the muzzle.
From Galilean Relativity we know that this claim is false.
21) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation
Duplicate of #20
22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.Taxonomy: Earth Rotation
Balloons and falling men do not lose their existing rotational momentum just because they are in the air.
Duplicate of #20
Which makes the claim of *200* proofs extremely dubious.
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.
No Dubay, it's not 'gravity' -- it's well-documented fluid dynamics that causes the air to mostly rotate with the Earth. Deviations from matching that rotation are called Wind. Same goes all the way up. And you failed to calculate how much faster it would be spinning and show that this effect-size cannot be accounted for with existing fluid dynamic models.
See: Flat Earth Follies: vacuum of space would suck the atmosphere off the Earth
Rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles do not lose their existing rotational momentum just because they are in the air.
Duplicate of #20
24) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman, Factual Error
See: Flat Earth Follies: Military Ballistics doesn't take Earth Curvature into Account
25) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind! Likewise Westward destinations should be arrived at thrice the speed, but this is not the case.Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman
Once again, airplanes also do not lose their existing rotational momentum just because they are in the air.
Duplicate of #20
26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman
Once again, airplanes also do not lose their existing rotational momentum just because they are in the air.
Duplicate of #20
Seriously dude. Newton's Laws -- Physics 101 level stuff.
Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman27) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, landing airplanes on such fast-moving runways which face all manner of directions North, South, East, West and otherwise would be practically impossible, yet in reality such fictional concerns are completely negligible.
Once again, airplanes also do not lose their existing rotational momentum just because they are in the air.
Duplicate of #20
28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman
Once again, air molecules also do not lose their existing rotational momentum.
Duplicate of #20
29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.
Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman
Once again, air molecules also do not lose their existing rotational momentum.
Duplicate of #20
And I'll add here that You Cannot Locally Measure Speed. You can measure acceleration. You can measure your speed relative to something else. But there is NO instrument that can say "you are going 20 mph". It's always relative to something else.
In a car, your speedometer measures the rotation of the axle -- it literally counts how many times it goes around per unit time and guesses a speed based on that given the standard tire size for that vehicle. Change your tire size and it will read out incorrectly.
People on the Concorde going 1341 mph could walk up and the down aisles freely because you do not feel speed. They could juggle, pour water, stand, walk, all with no problem. The only time it's a problem is when it isn't smooth because that causes many sharp accelerations in all directions.
We can also measure relative speed with the doppler effect, by seeing how frequencies of sound or light are shifted by speed.
Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman30) In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear … it enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."
Once again, air molecules also do not lose their existing rotational momentum.
They are therefore subject freely to fluid dynamics -- pressure changes caused by heating and cooling, and all the rest. Having wind going different directions on a rotating Earth is not a violation of any physical law.
Duplicate of #20
31) Quoting “Zetetic Cosmogeny” Thomas Winships states: “Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on? If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”Taxonomy: Rotational Physics Strawman
Duplicate of #20
32) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.Taxonomy: Physics Strawman
Except The FORCE of Gravity is F=ma -- mass TIMES the acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s²) -- non-rigid bodies do not share a force of gravity -- but as a first approximation a rigid body can be treated as one mass.
The FORCE felt by each water molecule is very small, the force on an insect is miniscule.
The electro-chemical energy used by the insect is more than sufficient to overcome the force of gravity.
Dubay must somehow think the FORCE is constant for all independent masses, which is just wrong.
33) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.Taxonomy: Physics Strawman
Literally nobody says that... duplicate of #32
Taxonomy: Factual Error34) Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.
The nautical mile is defined as 1 arc minute of curvature of the Earth by measuring the angle of stars like Polaris to find your latitude. This is the only way long distance voyages were successfully navigated.
"Plane Sailing" is only for very short distances and the resulting Rhumb lines (of constant bearing) are demonstrably longer distances than the Great Circle routes necessary for efficient long distance voyages. In fact, Rhumb lines actually spiral around towards the poles:
NO long distance commercial vessel today uses "Plane Sailing".
Taxonomy: Factual Error35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.
Latitude circles DO get smaller and smaller as you travel South.
Do you see planes banking over to fly around the Equator?
And in fact, even the simple geometry of a flat plane circle will not match the Flat Earth model cited:
Taxonomy: Appeal to Incompetence36) During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.
Yes? And? This isn't a proof of anything except their incompetence. Maybe they foolishly believed the world to be flat?
37) Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from 1838 to 1842, and in his journals also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.Taxonomy: Appeal to Incompetence
Yes? And?
(this is mind-numbing...)
38) To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning?’” The simple answer is that Earth is not a ball.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Incompetence
Yes? And?
39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.
Taxonomy: Latitude/Longitude Strawman
Nelson, NZ is closer to 1310 statute miles, this is 18.9° because you cannot just difference the longitude -- that's utterly dishonest. This gives you ~24952 miles around (Great Circle) which is correct to within a small margin of error.
40) From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.Taxonomy: Latitude/Longitude Strawman
Duplicate of #39 - Same error, distance is wrong, does latitude/longitude math incorrectly.
Taxonomy: Latitude/Longitude Strawman41) Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.
Duplicate of #39 - Same error, distance is wrong, does latitude/longitude math incorrectly.
Taxonomy: Factual Error42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.
These journeys went many places and did not only circumnavigate Antarctica, for example, for Cook:
Show me detailed logs with star position and time observations and put them into Google Earth, following exactly those paths, and then we can talk. Until then this nonsense is clear and obvious deception.
Taxonomy: Flight Paths43) If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.
Airlines fly where people can fill the planes -- they don't fly all possible routes just because 1 person sometimes wants to go that way. People sometimes have to fly to a major hub to get to a less frequent destination.
And this is debunked by QF27/28 anyway:
There is no way to make that flight time on the Flat Earth map -- it would be insanely far and to "fool" everyone it would have to be even long so they could fly the crazy arc flight to avoid the US and all points in between.
So this claim busted.
Taxonomy: Flight Paths44) If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.
Duplicate of #43
Taxonomy: Flight Paths45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.
Duplicate of #43
Taxonomy: Flight Paths46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.
Duplicate of #43
Taxonomy: Flight Paths47) On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.
Duplicate of #43
Taxonomy: Flight Paths48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.
Duplicate of #43
49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.Taxonomy: Climate
It's a complete misrepresentation to say "another 4,000 miles" -- that distance itself is irrelevant. The issue is that on a Globe then angle of the light hitting the land has changes from coming nearly straight down between the Tropics to a nearly zero degree angle at the poles.
Please show me your equations that demonstrate what you claim, because we have this model for a Globe. You are also ignoring other factors that impact climate, ocean currents, altitude, etc. There are wildly different climates just dozens of miles apart -- even microclimates due to terrain and other factors.
Here is the Globe model:
Taxonomy: Climate50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.
Duplicate of #49 - incident angle, northern ocean currents are warmer, antarctica is highly elevated over the arctic, etc.
51) Antarctica is by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of approximately -57 degrees Fahrenheit, and a record low of -135.8! The average annual temperature at the North Pole, however, is a comparatively warm 4 degrees. Throughout the year, temperatures in the Antarctic vary less than half the amount at comparable Arctic latitudes. The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice. On a tilting, wobbling, ball-Earth spinning uniformly around the Sun, Arctic and Antarctic temperatures and seasons should not vary so greatly.Taxonomy: Climate
Duplicate of #49 - incident angle, northern ocean currents are warmer, antarctica is highly elevated over the arctic, etc.
Taxonomy: Climate52) Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. The same latitude as Canada or England in the North where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote of Georgia that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick! Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen. The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness - never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.”
Duplicate of #49 - incident angle, northern ocean currents are warmer, antarctica is highly elevated over the arctic, etc.
53) At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic.Taxonomy: Factual Error
For equal latitudes N and S they have equally long/short days for equal portions of the year.
Taxonomy: Factual Error54) At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.
The Sun would have to race around the longer Tropic of Capricorn 58% faster than the shorter Tropic of Cancer... and yet nobody notices the sun moving that much faster?
See: Flat Earth Follies: Nearby Sun Impossible
Taxonomy: Factual Error55) If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!
That's some nice CGI you got there, but what you do not have is any evidence of the Sun's motion changing or the ground track distance being much larger in the South or the morning dawn being any different from in the North at the same latitudes at opposite times of the year.
Taxonomy: Globe Strawman56) The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!
Um no, the claim is that the rotational axis of the Earth is tilted relative to the ecliptic by approximately 23.43696° (a value which varies over time and this fact is not accounted for by Flat Earth). When Earth's orbit has the North or South pole maximally tilted away from the Sun, a band of the Earth 23.4° wide remains in relative darkness for 24 hours.
This is trivial to demonstrate on a globe leaving me pondering why they would appear to be dishonest about this.
57) The establishment claims the Midnight Sun IS experienced in Antarctica but they conveniently do not have any uncut videos showing this, nor do they allow independent explorers to travel to Antarctica during the winter solstice to verify or refute these claims. Conversely, there are dozens of uncut videos publicly available showing the Arctic Midnight Sun and it has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Taxonomy: Globe Strawman
Actually there are numerous videos showing this and thousands of witnesses.
Antarctic midnight sun has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Notice how a lot of Flat Earth "evidence" is "so and so hasn't produced the evidence I demand?"
Taxonomy: Globe Strawman58) The Royal Belgian Geographical Society in their “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” recorded that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st! This is completely at odds with the ball-Earth theory, but easily explained by the flat-Earth model. The Midnight Sun is seen from high altitudes in extreme Northern latitudes during Arctic summer because the Sun, at its inner-most cycle, is circling tightly enough around the polar center that it remains visible above the horizon for someone at such a vantage point. Likewise, in extreme Southern latitudes during Arctic summer, the Sun completely disappears from view for over 2 months because there at the Northern Tropic, at the inner-most arc of its boomerang journey, the Sun is circling the Northern center too tightly to be seen from the Southern circumference.
Duplicate of #57
Taxonomy: Globe Strawman
59) Quoting Gabrielle Henriet, “The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?”
The Axial Tilt explains this perfectly and this is another Flat Earth self-debunk. The diagram he gives shows the situation only at the Equinox -- and on the Equinox we do indeed observer 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night equally all over the Globe. This is impossible on the Flat Earth without invoking magic.
Here is what the sunlight pattern would have to be for the various seasons on a Flat Earth.
Now that is a magical 'spotlight' Sun.
Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry60) Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center.
The curvature here is again (see #1), an apparent horizon sagitta that curves around the observer. It is not, as Rowbotham here tries to suggest, the curvature of the Earth. This is how much of a fraud Rowbotham was and here we see Dubay parroting him. Is Dubay just an uninformed parrot or educated and studied person who should know better?
So yes, that curvature is very slight - this doesn't disprove a Globe. But we can, in fact, measure the horizon sagitta exactly as Rowbotham describes...
 |
| Image Credit: Clouds Givemethewillies |
You can clearly see the horizon is not following the straight edge of the level. And since we have a straight edge in the frame we can eliminate lens distortion.
Here is a little trick I picked up -- you can compress just the width of an image to accentuate vertical changes -- I also increased the contrast a bit in this example -- do it yourself on the original.
If you want to do this yourself, get a high-resolution camera with a good quality, very wide-angle rectilinear lens and prove us wrong.
This one doesn't have a ruler but it's a beautiful example of how "looks flat" can be deceiving:
 |
| Image Credit: Nobody Hikes In Lunada Canyon |
Is that the actual curvature or some lens distortion -- the horizon is almost dead center and there is almost no other indications of fisheye distortion so it's unlikely to be much lens distortion. That's only about 4-6 pixels of apparent horizon sagitta.
Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry Strawman61) If the Earth were actually a big ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the horizon would be noticeably curved even at sea-level, and everything on or approaching the horizon would appear to tilt backwards slightly from your perspective. Distant buildings along the horizon would all look like leaning towers of Piza falling away from the observer. A hot-air balloon taking off then drifting steadily away from you, on a ball-Earth would slowly and constantly appear to lean back more and more the farther away it flew, the bottom of the basket coming gradually into view as the top of the balloon disappears from sight. In reality, however, buildings, balloons, trees, people, anything and everything at right angles to the ground/horizon remains so regardless the distance or height of the observer.
Wrong, see #1 - and as for the tilt of distant buildings they tilt 1 degree every 69.1 miles -- you cannot see a 1 degree tilt on a hazy distant horizon. But what's worse for this nonsensical claim is that when you are looking at a building on the horizon and you can see the bottom of that building only then is the building actually at 90 degrees to the vertical to your line-of-sight to the base.
When you are standing next to a building and looking down at the base of it, the base of that building is tilted many many degrees to your line of sight. And as you look up the top of the building is tilted many degrees the other direction. We just normalize all this in our brain.
How far back is the face of this speaker tilted?
Taxonomy: Failed to account for Refraction62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.
Wallace debunked this.
Taxonomy: Failed to account for Refraction63) In a second experiment Dr. Rowbotham affixed flags 5 feet high along the shoreline, one at every mile marker. Then using his telescope mounted at 5 feet just behind the first flag looked over the tops of all 6 flags which lined up in a perfectly straight line. If the Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the flags should have progressively dipped down after the first establishing line of sight, the second would have descended 8 inches, 32 inches for the third, 6 feet for the fourth, 10 feet 8 inches for the fifth, and 16 feet 8 inches for the sixth.
Duplicate of #62
64) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched parallel to the horizon. From the center of the line the view embraced not less than 20 miles on each side making a distance of 40 miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the center of the arc, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the vessel would be below the line at the beginning and at the end of the 40 miles.”Taxonomy: Assertion
This is a nice claim, I would like to see the evidence because this isn't what we actually observe.
We can see the boat very clearly sinking below the horizon. If you want to appeal to 'refraction' or 'perspective' to excuse this then you can't make claim #64 without any actual evidence.
If this were perspective the boat would just appear smaller, we wouldn't be missing half the boat.
This is because perspective is just a consequence of the line-of-sight changing angles as an object recedes from an observer.
65) Also Quoting Dr. Rowbotham, “On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.”Taxonomy: Assumptions, Refraction
Duplicates other claims - is a claim not evidence, ignores refraction, and makes assumptions about the rate of travel.
Taxonomy: Unevidenced Claim66) Dr. Rowbotham conducted several other experiments using telescopes, spirit levels, sextants and “theodolites,” special precision instruments used for measuring angles in horizontal or vertical planes. By positioning them at equal heights aimed at each other successively he proved over and over the Earth to be perfectly flat for miles without a single inch of curvature. His findings caused quite a stir in the scientific community and thanks to 30 years of his efforts, the shape of the Earth became a hot topic of debate around the turn of the nineteenth century.
Duplicates of other claims but without even a whiff of new evidence.
Taxonomy: Ignores Refraction67) The distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end. It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor. This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles. Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!
I analyzed several cases where I could find actual evidence and every observation matches what is expected on a Globe with some reasonable amount of refraction. See Flat Earth Follies: Isle of Man, seen from the Great Orme
Taxonomy: Earth Curavture68) The Philadelphia skyline is clearly visible from Apple Pie Hill in the New Jersey Pine Barrens 40 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring in the 205 foot elevation of Apple Pie Hill, the Philly skyline should remain well-hidden beyond 335 feet of curvature.
Debunked and another factual error - it is about 32.44 miles away, not 40 miles. Also, while the ground is about 205 feet up there is a tower on the hill that can add another 50+ feet to the observer height.
See: Analysis: Apple Pie Hill to Philadelphia
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature69) The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth.
Duplicate of #68 - Bear Mountain is 39 miles away, not 60 miles. Another factual error.
Since Bear Mountain is 1,283' and it is 38.96 miles to the Empire State Building we expect to be able to see 100% of the Empire state building from this height -- since the horizon is ~43.9 miles away.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature70) From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.
Duplicate of #68 - The overlook is over 500 feet. New York is under 28 miles away and Philadelphia is under 60 miles. More lies. With standard refraction (15%) only about 400 feet of the bottoms of buildings in Philadelphia would be obscured.
However, I couldn't find an image that was definitely from this location of the Philadelphia skyline -- I would believe it could exist but someone will have to bring their evidence to me and then we can evaluate it. Now remember, since the buildings are twice the distance we expect them to only be 1/2 the angular size. That alone will pretty much destroy any claim we're seeing the 'whole' building from here.
71) It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature
Duplicate of #68, also ignores Refraction
See Chicago skyline 'looming' from MI - explained
And yes, it IS refraction -- see these side-by-sides from Joshua Nowicki's video - you can clearly see the position of the lake shifting wildly and the buildings stretching and flickering.
72) October 16, 1854 the Times newspaper reported the Queen’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull recording they were able to see the 300 foot tall dock tower from 70 miles away. On a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring their 10 foot elevation above the water and the tower’s 300 foot height, at 70 miles away the dock tower should have remained an entire 2,600 feet below the horizon.Taxonomy: Earth Curvature
The distance from Hull to Grimsby Dock Tower is about 15.28 miles not 70 miles -- giving us an estimate obscured height of no more than 87 feet (and probably less due to refraction).
73) In 1872 Capt. Gibson and crewmates, sailing the ship “Thomas Wood” from China to London, reported seeing the entirety of St. Helena Island on a clear day from 75 miles away. Factoring in their height during measurement on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, it was found the island should have been 3,650 feet below their line of sight.Taxonomy: Earth Curvature
Another factual error -- notice how sometimes he gives and subtracts observer height and this time we're just told "island should have been 3,650 feet below their line of sight"? 3,650 feet would be for an observer whose eye is half-way submerged under the water. How tall was this ship? I cannot find records of this voyage or this ship but the Moshulu main mast was reported as 58 meters off the Deck. If we're 70 meters up we can see considerably further.
But this is an unrepeatable experiment, there is no evidence supporting this claim. Someone claiming what they saw is not evidence - just look at how many claims in this series that are easy to test have been shown to be false. Maybe they were only 20 miles away? 30 miles?
Unlike other examples, there is no landmark given that I can verify in this case.
Dubay's lack of evidence does not constitute a proof. Maybe get one of your NBA Flat Earthers to commission a ship with a high-quality, high-resolution camera and get the evidence needed to prove the Earth is flat once and for all.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature74) From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Gorgona can often be seen 81 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Gorgona should be hidden beyond 3,332 feet of curvature.
You're only seeing the tops of distant elevated land and the observer altitude in the image is definitely higher than 70 feet. This '70 foot' claim is completely made up.
See source video - you can see many of these shots are from tops of mountains and high buildings and even see an airplane flying underneath the observer in one shot.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature75) From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Corsica can often be seen 99 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Corsica should fall 5,245 feet, almost an entire mile below the horizon.
Duplicate of #74
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature76) From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.
Duplicate of #74
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature77) Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.
Duplicate of #74 (more like "on days with more than normal refraction")
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature78) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.
The image looks to be from above 102 feet, we can see that we're well above the distant buildings.
We can line this up in Google Earth Pro and we find the following details match this photo very well:
Lat: 61.181109817°
Long: -149.862923906°
Elevation: 330.00m (Above Sea Level)
Heading: 339.20°
Tilt: 88.40°
Roll: 0.10°
H. FOV: 17.09°
V. FOV: 7.37°
I also found this image on Flickr, where it says this was taken with a Nikon D90, with a 70mm lens (105mm in 35mm equivalent) but the image has clearly been cropped since it's not in the original aspect ratio and down-resed (I would love to have the original). So this puts us about 1083 feet up.
But with this information we can estimate the number of pixels we expect the mountain to be -- first we will compensate for our 2 degree "lean" -- that's 17,400 * cos(2°) gives us 17,389 -- so our mountain would appear 11 feet shorter (hint: this will make zero difference). Now we can take the angular size of the mountain at 132.93 miles (701,870 feet) as 2*arctan(17389/2/701870) = 1.41944°.
So that is 1.41944°/7.37° = 19.26% of our image or 0.1926*439 pixels or ~84.5 pixels high.
Full equation: ([2*arctan([17400*cos(2°)]/2/701870) rad]/7.37°)*439 [Wolfram|Alpha] ~ 84.55
We can also estimate this from the other direction -- from 330 meters up we would expect 5724 feet to be hidden which is 5724/17400 or about 33% of the mountain hidden, 33% of 85 pixels is 28 pixels.
Now, how about that -- both an angular size estimation and the hidden amount just happen to agree with our observation. Flat Earthers will assert, completely without any supporting evidence or rationale, that this is the entirety of the mountain. But take the same image from much higher up and you'll see more and more of the mountain -- just look at the next claim for evidence of that, we can clearly see more of the mountain in this image even though we're further away (not on the shore) but Dubay will claim you see the entire mountain top-to-base.
And again with the leaning... It's less than 2° "lean" and ~130 miles away and the ground is sloped -- where did Dubay measure this exactly? He's appealing to some nonsensical idea that you would just see a mountain 'leaning' 2° with slopes that vary as a mountain would. How could you possibly detect this?
Finding observer using Google Earth Pro image overlay:
That's the whole mountain? No it isn't. Already disproved by #78
And while this claim does not meet any Burden of Proof (it's bald assertion) I can show good cause for why it is also a factual misrepresentation.
From the original on flickr it looks to me we're higher than 102 feet over the water (we're well over the cranes). This images is too low-resolution and blurry to get a lock on the location but we're about 133 miles from Denali here. The mountains are about 14.4 miles apart so we can use that to get an estimate on the angular height. 2*arctan(14.4/2/133) gives us 6.197° for 168 pixels, which means Denali's 20,310' height would be 2*arctan(20310/2/(133*5280)) or 1.657° which should be about 45 pixels high.
Which puts the base of the mountain well below the horizon here.
We also cannot see exactly where the horizon would be here because there is a large hill in the foreground but let's calculate where it would be and we can see if that looks reasonable.
For 102' observer 9707.6' should be hidden which is (9707.7/20310)*45 or 21.5 pixels up (orange).
For 220' observer 8796.9' should be hidden which is (8796.9/20310)*45 or 19.5 pixels up (green).
Which looks about right -- so this is consistent with the Globe and a significant portion of the mountain is hidden by the curvature of the Earth. If you don't like this approach, too bad -- get better evidence.
And again with the lean is a ridiculous claim, from #78.
These guys Love the late 1800's where nothing can be verified.
Funny how, even with massive telescopes we have today, we cannot see other ships 200 miles from near sea-level. Ships cannot even see fairly tall lighthouses from 200 miles away.
Must have been some magical eyes since a 200' ship at 200 miles would be well below human angular resolution vision to see by half.
How about this -- a repeatable and verifiable observation of a 100' lighthouse from 200 miles out?
Got one?
You can see a light that is illuminating haze/fog/particulates from further away than you can see the actual light.
Also doesn't account for refraction.
Provides no verifiable evidence for the claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Duplicate of #81 - ignores observer height, refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
There is no evidence supporting this claim. Claims are not 'proof'.
Likely this references the wrong lights and instead is seeing South Stack Lighthouse and Baily Lighthouse. Got evidence otherwise? If the veracity of the claims cannot be demonstrated then it's not a proof and can be dismissed. We've also shown again and again and again that these claims are usually false and the observations, in reality, fit the Globe model.
Duplicate of #1, the horizon curvature around the observer isn't the curve of the Earth and makes it appear considerably flatter. This is a strawman of the actual model.
More inexcusable errors from Flat Earth, Portsmouth Harbor to the Isle of Wight doesn't have anything near 'perfectly straight' for 22 miles.
22 miles wide from 6 miles away would be a view over 122° wide, that's absurd.
And what do we get for evidence? A drawing? That doesn't look 122° wide, that looks like a very narrow view of a couple of hills, maybe on a point.
Duplicate of #1, the horizon curvature around the observer isn't the curve of the Earth.
And more lies and more lack of evidence.
It's not even horizontal to the viewer!
Do you suppose that a coastline as CURVED as this one (Point of Ayr to Holyhead):
Might 'look flat' because you're viewing it on edge? Kind of like the Horizon?
And again, where is the exact evidence for the claim? How are these 'proofs' when they give you NO evidence? It's not in the video either (50:42), just shows you random videos.
From what exact altitude are we seeing this coastline?
These are just parroted lies.
Again, zero evidence = zero "proof". You can see the effects of light in the atmosphere long before you can see the actual light. All this is proving is that the horizon position doesn't change as you sail over the curvature of the Earth -- and it shouldn't.
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation
You cannot locally measure or feel speed alone. No instrument exists which measures speed but in relation to the motion of some other object. The speedometer in your car measures the rotational rate of a wire coming from the axle and assumes the size of the tires to estimate speed - your odometer will be incorrect over time if you change the size of your tires.
In a car, on a train, or on a plane - what you feel are the little accelerations on the moving vehicle as bumps and twists that give you the sensation of speed but if you were isolated inside a box you couldn't tell you were actually moving.
Also, the figures stated are our relative speeds to other objects in the Universe.
Prove me wrong -- show me an electronic device that measures speed while being completely enclosed with no input from the outside world -- no radio signals, no opticals, just measures it locally.
See also #29
It's hard to measure tiny angles -- we've actually got better at it. See #19
How Polaris 'manages' this is:
#1 is it not directly over anything -- it's 40 arc minutes off center (2/3 degree)
#2 it has moved -- measurably since 1980's (mostly due to precession), it was further from center!
Dubay fails on every point.
It's not directly over the North Pole, it's 2/3 degree off currently (see #98), so we would expect to see it from just slightly South of the Equator from Sea-level (about 70 miles) and a little further as you get above Sea-Level. In the high mountains, maybe as far South as 5 degrees latitude.
Polaris has never been seen from 20 degrees South latitude at any Earth-bound altitude (from the ISS, sure). No evidence is given to support this claim.
See Nautical Almanac's Polaris Corrections.
Completely incorrect and unevidenced. Where does Dubay demonstrate any of this with verifiable evidence? These are not subjective claims, these are relatively easy to verify hard facts.
The Southern stars work exactly like the Northern stars except that when you look at the center of rotation the stars are rotating the opposite direction -- but this is relative direction because you are turned 180 degrees. Here are the Southern star trails.
and if you are near the equator and capture both North and South stars at the same time...
Polaris is 2/3 degree off center, Sigma Octantis is slightly over 1 degree. So what?
Both behave identically other than a slight difference is how much they are offset from the center of rotation.
Dubay provides no evidence for his assertion. Sigma Octantis is slightly dimmer (Mag 5.45) than Polaris (1.95) but is easily seen with any telescope and can be seen with the naked eye under dark skies.
"cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes" is a complete fabrication.
It's hard to tell which star it is because it's unremarkable, but it's not hard to see it.
Flat Earthers love to claim that perspective does so many magic things but this isn't how perspective works.
The issue here is that the angle of Polaris over the horizon shifts degree for degree with your latitude and latitude is 69.1 miles per degree. If you try to plot out the angle of Polaris it becomes impossible if you assume a Flat Earth:
The stars in Ursa Major vary from 61°39' to 49°13' off center, no where close to Polaris -- subtract that from 90° and that's how far South you would expect to see that star from sea level (rising in altitude allows you to see a bit further).
So we expect to see ? UMa as far South as 28°21' and ? UMa from as far South as 40°47'.
Utter hogwash Dubay. And this holds for the Southern stars as well. You can see a star from 1/4 the way around the Earth (basically 90°) in every direction from underneath that star.
Duplicate of #103, This time the stars are in the 24° - 28° range so should be seen as far South as 66°
Why does Dubay stop at "90 degrees North latitude"? You can see it far to the other side of the North Pole from the side the star is on as well. Again -- it's 1/4 the way around in every direction, for every star, and it shifts second to second -- which makes Earth a sphere.
Duplicate of #103, no Dubay, it's because you don't understand how a sphere works at even a basic level.
Magnetic compasses don't even point to the rotational North Pole!
And the South Magnetic Pole isn't exactly opposite it:
All Dubay has proved here is ignorance. The ceremonial South pole is very near the actual rotational center, it is not exactly placed. There is no official marker at the North Pole either and a magnetic compass placed there does not point south in all directions. He leaves that little tidbit out.
Dubay presents no evidence here that supports a Flat Earth. You don't need to drill into something to know what it's made of, there are many other mechanisms. What we know about the interior of the Earth is from seismic data which is just as valid as putting eyes on it (and often more reliable).
So this is all irrelevant to the Shape of the Earth.
'constantly moving geomagnetic poles' -- that would be ~0.0007 Miles Per Hour -- and that motion is Thousands of miles away making the angular rate of motion...
Say it with me:
2*arctan(size/2/distance) degrees per hour
2*arctan(0.0007/2/3500) = 0.000011 degrees per hour
Rocketing around the Globe, clearly.
Why would South "point up and off into space?" Gravity around the Globe pulls towards center, the needle is balanced for Gravity -- the magnetic field is extremely weak, it's not going to overcome even the small force of gravity acting on a few grams of mass. It's only because it's balanced on a needle point that it has low enough friction to turn it.
Dubay offers no evidence here supporting this assertion that the South Pole isn't a rotationally fixed point, identical to that of the North rotational Pole.
This isn't even an attempted 'proof' -- just a random statement of nonsense.
A mere Circumnavigation doesn't prove it's a globe -- that the equator is a maximum circumference latitude and latitude circles grow progressively smaller in the Southern Latitudes proves it's a spheroid.
However, I think modern Flight Paths are easier to demonstrate than which path and exactly how long each leg was from a sailor from almost 500 years ago was.
It is not factually correct that either Pole is a "no-fly" zone -- yes you need Permission to fly almost everywhere. That permission is easy to get if you are qualified.
Ranulph Fiennes and Charles Burton completed a full circumnavigation via both poles in 1982.
If you want to try it go for it -- nobody is stopping any Flat Earth group from undertaking this except themselves.
Flights to and over Antarctica are available if you can afford them.
LOL, No Dubay -- the solar day is defined as the average noon-to-noon time -- this is called a Synodic day (86400 seconds/24 hours). You've confused this with the Sidereal day (23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09054 seconds) which is one exact revolution of Earth relative to the distant stars. The Sidereal period of rotation does cause a 12 hour flip every 6 months!
See: Flat Earth Follies: Why Don't The Days Shift By 12 Hours Between Summer and Winter?
Um, no dog... Flat Earth is the one that appeals to magic -- how does the Sun stay above a Flat Earth? What makes the Sun move faster in Winter to traverse the greater circumference? How does an Eclipse work? If the Sun and Moon are near how do distant observers on Earth see nearly the exact same side? These and Thousands of other questions all become Magic on Flat Earth.
In the Heliocentric model Gravity is the mutual attraction of Mass proportional to F=GMm/r²
Mass has inertia (or momentum) which means it continues moving unless some Force acts upon it.
Both of these are empirical laws of Nature and out of them you get almost all observed behavior -- large masses will reach a hydrostatic equilibrium forming a spheroid shape (rotating masses will form oblate spheroids); large bodies of gas will reach critical mass and begin to fuse hydrogen into helium, giving off a heat signature exactly as our Sun does; smaller rocky bodies will form elliptical orbits based on the conservation laws; everything we observe falls out of these few simple and empirical Laws.
And yes Gravity is well observed and measured, even at the atomic level.
Given this the fact that a massive body like the Earth pulls everything towards the center is not astonishing in the slightest.
See also: Flat Earth Follies: Gravity is SO STRONG it can hold all the world's oceans, but SO WEAK a butterfly is stronger, LOL stupid Gravity believers
Duplicate of #113 -- down is towards Earth's center. If Lactantius cannot get this right he's not exactly an authority we can trust (and Dubay cannot get 'Lactantius' right).
There is no "Law of density" - this whole bit is a complete misrepresentation of reality.
Buoyancy is given by:
Buoyant Force = WeightDisplaced
Also written: Bf = p × V × g
So he has appealed to Buoyancy which just proves gravity.
Gravity has, in fact, been measured, 100's of times (tens of thousands if you count all the physics students that do it every year).
For example: Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity
Down in the Heliocentric model (really Globe in this case) is towards the center of gravity of the large planetary body. More misrepresentations of reality.
See: OH Buoyancy! Flerfers are at it again
We can see the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter.
Orbits aren't circular, they are elliptical.
They are not perfect.
They decay and precess over time.
You cannot 'jump and orbit the Earth' because you need to be going 17,000 mph and you cannot do that inside the atmosphere.
Dubay doesn't understand forces - the Force of gravity is GMm/r² which clearly says it depends upon both masses -- they mutually attract. So "larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around" is complete nonsense.
Further, the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the distance squared.
Dubay doesn't understand tides -- Both the Sun and Moon are involved and the differential gravity on both sides of the Earth are important (divided by the distance squared).
So if you just do the fairly simple math, the sum of the forces acting on the surface actually looks something like this:
All bodies of water DO have tides -- exactly proportional to the forces acting upon them. If you do the math instead of just make things up you'll find the sum of those forces acting on a pool are very small and amount to a few atoms of movement. While over the Great Lakes it's about 5 cm. And proportionally larger over the vast Ocean. And the tide is pulled mostly towards the Lunar side but the Earth is rotating so this pushes the tide out in front of the position of the Moon.
The effect of this tide varies with the topography of the water/land interface.
This actually creates a slight gravitational tug forward on the Moon which causes the Lunar orbit to grow about 3.78 cm every year and the Earth's rotation to slow slightly. This is measurable and confirmed.
Here is Mars through Thierry Legault's telescope -- just because it requires better equipment than you have, doesn't make it fake.
here is my own personal image of Saturn through my completely manual 6" telescope:
Even though Mars is closer, it is much smaller so I don't have a good image of it. I also need to wait for it to be on the same side of the Sun as Earth is -- it can take years to get a good image. I don't even have a good Jupiter yet (starting in February 2018 I'll be able to start capturing it).
So don't try to pass of some pathetic P900 garbage to me as "the real planets", I know an out of focus image when I see one.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Etymology, Unevidenced Assertion
They used to think evil spirits in your head needed to be released and would knock a hole into your skull to let them out... turns out it just relieved intracranial pressure.
How is an etymology copy & paste a 'proof' of Earth's shape?
More on planet.
You cannot judge distance by apparent size.
Duplicate of #29 -- you cannot feel speed.
Taxonomy: Appeal to False Authority, Feel Speed
We can measure Earth's rotation. Cannot feel or locally measure speed.
Stunning analysis utterly destroys this claim (and you can also clearly see the horizon sagitta curvature in this footage):
Until you analyze where the sun actually is. Do you have verifiable images with a known location, date, and time that aren't photoshopped?
Cuz when I wrote the photographer for this one they said it was a fake but the Flat Earther assured me it was real.
another one...
Flat Earthers need to bring the verifiable evidence. I'm not doing more of these, "Do The Research" yourself. Show me an image where the sun is actually over the spot you claim.
And then there are the obvious failures of trying to take 2D angles from 3D space, where is the Sun now?
See: Crepuscular Rays are Parallel
No Dubay, the seasons are only caused by the axial tilt. And thanks to the precession of Earth's axis that doesn't occur at any fixed point in the orbit and has measurably shifted over hundreds of years.
During summer the Northern latitudes experience longer days and more direct sunlight and in Northern winter, the Southern latitudes have longer days and more direct sunlight -- regardless of where we are in the elliptical orbit.
It's a very simple model. How can you fail so badly at this?
Taxonomy: Reflections
Wrong.
Um... why would the length of the day have changed that much? The Earth, Moon, and Sun are massive and nearly frictionless.
The Day actually does get about 2 milliseconds longer every 100 years or so right now due to the tides transferring some rotational energy to the Moon's orbit (pushing it every so slightly out).
Dubay makes assertions here but doesn't back them up -- please share your calculations that show exactly what you mean to claim -- only then can we evaluate them.
This guy doesn't understand the difference between accelerations and speed.
And, Um, I have an equatorial mount so it can move or else I get blurry pictures.
And guess how EQ mounts track? Yeah, in a circle -- not an oval tracking some distant sun that remains over a Flat Earth.
No evidence is given by Rowbotham or Dubay -- how was it assured the tubes were perfectly parallel? *crickets*
However, Annual parallax is observed and measured to 1/1000th of a degree for over 120,000 starts by the Hipparcos mission.
Um, where was this "proven" exactly? YouTube? LOL
Dude, the moon is a spheroid and it isn't transparent.
No, it proves that lots of UV light kills germs and the massively greater light energy will dry things out before they decay.
Where did you control for these variables as well as humidity, temperature, etc?
False, this shows that open sky allows more heat to radiate away than being under a shelter.
Control for having NO moonlight in the same circumstances and you see the same effect -- areas open to the sky will be cooler. And we show a video of measuring the moonlight through a telescope with a significant increase in temperature.
See Flat Earth Follies: Moonlight is cold light
Um... nobody says the Moon is acting as a lens or mirror. Google Foo: 'Diffuse reflection'
Dubay literally just tried to argue that you cannot see any object in the world. /smh/
Duplicate of #131 - #134
Predictive power is just one prong that supports a Scientific Theory. The Saros Cycle of eclipses is purely empirical - it has no explanatory power and no accounting for its own inaccuracies which is why it was replaced with the more accurate Heliocentric model.
The Heliocentric model allows to the second prediction of eclipses and exact modeling of every aspect we observe in the Solar System.
This is called a Selenelion (see Dec 10, 2010 Selenelion). Lunar eclipses are always at the Full Moon, which rises at sunset and there could be an eclipse at this time because it is well established that when on the horizon, the sun and moon are both about 1/2° (34 arcminutes) below the actual horizon and refraction is bending the light slightly because the lower atmosphere is more dense than the upper atmosphere.
This perfectly fits the Heliocentric model and isn't a 'proof' against it.
See also: In Search of Selenelion
Duplicate of #19, #102 - This isn't how Perspective works.
Dubay also provides no actual evidence of this claim over - such evidence would necessarily include evidence that the ground is actually perfectly flat.
And yes, at some point a distant object would become too small to see -- but that isn't what we observe -- the top and bottom portions would remain fully visible and uniformly become smaller. Perspective cannot make something disappear from the bottom up while leaving the top perfectly visible and large enough to see.
Duplicate of #19, #102, #138
Duplicate of #16 (et al.)
They are very good evidence but not the only evidence -- it is the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence from, every quarter, that demonstrates the rotation of the Earth.
This includes the Gyrocompass, Sagnac interferometer, Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, Compton, Foucault Pendulums, etc.
No, the claim is that large systems will experience the Coriolis Effect and that other forces acting on small basins (sinks, tubs, toilets, etc) will overwhelm the Coriolis Effect unless carefully controlled for.
Failing to do the experiment properly isn't an argument against it. And claiming this is a proof is only proof for dishonesty.
I agree that haze would, in reality, prevent viewing DIM objects many thousands of miles away. However, since the Sun should be behind those objects, we should be able to see their silhouette and we cannot. So either I shouldn't be able to see the Sun or I should be able to see a silhouette... Flat Earth fails.
We can see many hundreds of miles from high altitudes so no excuse for why I can't see mountains 500 or so miles away.
Further evidence of the Flat Earth failure here is that the horizon is very sharp and distinct from 3 feet above calm waters, it is more distant at 6 feet above the water but still very distinct, and the horizon grows further and further away as we rise up and becomes more and more hazy. So it clearly isn't hazy that is limiting our view.
The unevidenced claim is "You can, however, use a telescope to zoom in MUCH more of our flat Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference." -- you'd think Dubay would have included such evidence in his '200 proofs' but all we've found is errors.
So many problems with this claim...
If the Sun were close we would see HUGE changes in the size of the Sun.
Some flat Earthers try to claim this is what we see but they ignore the glaring exposure issues in their 'proofs'
And also the sunlight pattern becomes an impossible anti-Sun in the Winter:
And the movement of the Sun and Moon shows a perfectly even motion -- if it were getting more distant we would see smaller and smaller angular motions for the same amount of time.
These poles are equally spaced but notice how they stack up due to perspective, we should see the same effect in the Moon and Sun but we don't.
What we see is equal angles swept out over equal time.
And why would the transition be 'instant' when the atmosphere is bending and scattering light?
Dubay is confusing camera orientation with orientation relative to the ground -- the point is that two observers at the same time see it upside down from each other relative to their ground. Not possible on a Flat Earth with a nearby Moon.
If the Moon were close, as Flat Earth claims, then observers far apart would see different sides of the Moon. That doesn't happen in reality only because the Moon is 238,900 miles away.
If the moon were a 'flat disc' then only observers directly underneath it would see it as circular, observers further away would increasingly see an oval. This doesn't happen - again, because the Moon is 238,900 miles away, far away observers see only a few arcminutes of difference (almost unmeasurable even with telescopes).
Any good telescope shows you it is very clearly a spheroid:
Furthermore, distant observers see the parallax shift expected of a Moon 238,900 miles away.
No, it isn't "plain" that this is the case and Dubay has given no evidence that this is the case. What causes the Moon to speed up and slow down between the Tropics? What holds it up? How did you measure that it was zooming around in the sky?
All have simple, evidenced explanations in the Heliocentric model.
No, nobody claims this is Precise, nor is it constant.
Annular eclipses of the Moon are when the moon is closer to the Earth and too small to cover the entire Solar disc, at other times it is wholly blotted out and then some. This is because the Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun distances are not constant and actual eclipses fit the model to a Tee.
148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”
Duplicate of #19 (et al.)
Parallax measurements to the nearest 120,000+ stars (by the Hipparcos mission) combined with the fact that observed angular shift is given by 2*arctan(size/2/distance) says otherwise.
On a Flat Earth with nearby stars those would be ovals and not circles.
Taxonomy: Stellar Parallax
Duplicate of #19 (et al.)
Parallax measurements to the nearest 120,000+ stars (by the Hipparcos mission) combined with the fact that observed angular shift is given by 2*arctan(size/2/distance) says otherwise.
On a Flat Earth with nearby stars those would be ovals and not circles.
Duplicate of #19 (et al.)
Parallax measurements to the nearest 120,000+ stars (by the Hipparcos mission) combined with the fact that observed angular shift is given by 2*arctan(size/2/distance) says otherwise.
On a Flat Earth with nearby stars those would be ovals and not circles.
Flat Earthers are appealing to studies they clearly didn't read:
Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.
By the transitive property of appealing to authority this means are they are now bound to accept that the Earth is an oblate spheroid... Right?
This isn't a proof because they are ignoring what the actual survey data says which demonstrates very clearly that it is curved -- it's only 'flat' relative to the curved Geoid of the Earth.
What Flat Earthers don't seem to get is that nobody really cares what they think (even me!) -- nobody needs to 'prove' the Earth is curved at this point.
The Red Bull Stratos jump was about breaking a world-record and advertising Red Bull products in the process. They used wide-angle lenses because they show a beautiful wide-field-of-view.
If you don't like the curvilinear distortion it's easy to correct but Flat Earthers over correct and use this to make false representations about the horizon instead.
GIMP can do it, GoPro has software that does it, even for the video. You can use something straight, that doesn't pass through lens center to verify the correction.
And you can use Walter Bislin's tool to generate a horizon for your exact altitude and overlay that -- as I did here.
And the shot from inside the capsule (see analysis) is an EXTREMELY narrow field-of-view which proves nothing -- I literally just cropped this shot from the Rotaflight balloon footage and this is likely a wider field-of-view than from inside the capsule out.
You DO have to look down to see the horizon -- exactly as much as expected on a Globe of 3959 miles radius and we can observe the Dip angle increasing exactly as expected:
See details: Flat Earth Follies: The Horizon Always Rises To Eye Level
And more: Flat Earth Follies: Magic Fish-Eye Holes in Airplane Windows
Taxonomy: Fisheye Fabrication
Unfortunately for Dubay, this is a cropped image and you cannot feed a cropped image into lens correction software. It's also not ok to just over correct until you get a flat horizon which was clearly done here.
The Two Eagles Balloon Story -- you can get the 3000x2250 pixel image from here.
Fortunately, the full image has some actually straight-lines we can use to correct the image.
Corrected using GIMP 2.9 Lens Distort with Main: 64, Edge: -16, Zoom: 16
Try to make that left bar and rigging straight and you distort everything else all to heck -- you'll see why the Flat Earthers cropped it way down. Whoever did that over-correct and crop job is lying to you on purpose.
And again, this claim "all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat" is completely false and a duplicate dealt with in #1.
Is my correction exactly perfect? I don't know, but it's the correction that works correctly for other GoPro images and it makes the yellow platform square up. I wouldn't personally use this image to make any argument because we lack too much information about it (even basic things like what altitude was this?). That doesn't seem to bother Flat Earthers...
The horizon is horribly indistinct -- I would wager that the dark band is simply the morning shadow and is NOT actually the horizon -- which is why it looks like greater curvature than you would expect. Which also means that this absurd amount of lens 'correction' that someone tried to apply to a cropped image is even more ridiculous. Flat Earth caught faking another "flat horizon"?
Duplicate of #23 - Gravity doesn't do the dragging, it just provides some downward (toward Earth center) force. Fluid dynamics does the rest. Dubay offers no evidence here either, just assertion.
I would love to see Dubay's mathematically accurate model for this. No? Oh look, another unevidenced claim.
This is the danger of conflating angular motions with linear speeds. The atmosphere aloft would be moving at the same angular rate as the atmosphere below it -- any deviation from this would be Wind and only that would cause drift.
Since the atmosphere becomes less dense with altitude (thanks to Gravity -- on Flat Earth shouldn't all air be the same 'density'?) fluid dynamics has less impact and pressure differentials can become more extreme, creating the Jet Stream, atmospheric heating from solar radiation produces the large scale Polar, Ferrel, and Hadley circulation cells, and the Coriolis force all play roles.
Duplicate of #158 (et al.), constant angular rotation. Contrary to Flat Earth ignorance, a vacuum does not 'suck' -- rather pressure pushes outwards. But the upper atmosphere is extremely low pressure due to gravity.
See details: Flat Earth Follies: vacuum of space would suck the atmosphere off the Earth
Dubay doesn't seem to understand Equal and Opposite Reaction. Rockets do not "push" off of the atmosphere, they push off of the violently exploding fuel/oxidizer mixture. Rocket Engines get more efficient with altitude because they aren't having to fight the ambient air pressure.
See Also: Quick Debunk: What do rockets 'push off of'?
No Dubay, airplane engines do not carry their own oxidizer, rocket engines do. Airplanes require aerodynamics to stay aloft, rockets do not. Airplanes go 500 MPH, Orbits are 17,000 MPH.
Airplanes do pitch over to follow Earth Curvature -- it's called Pitch Trim.
Artificial horizon is tied to local gravity so self-corrects for curvature:
Orbital launches only have to go 250 miles up but need to reach a horizontal speed of over 17,000 mph -- this is why they turn hard Eastward.
Dubay presents no evidence that they are flying a parabolic curve nor that the entire rocket comes back to Earth or stops ascending.
Orbit has to do with horizontal speed, not some magical altitude -- it's very desirable to each an altitude where the molecules are fewer in number so you aren't dragged down by air resistance.
That 'magic' altitude is the Kármán line at 100km is where an airplane using aerodynamic forces would hit orbital velocity and thus no longer be flying.
Shame on NASA for showing you how they train for missions? Dubay offers no evidence of actual fraud - 'proof' requires evidence Dubay -- not just assertion. And showing something you don't understand and claiming that is 'proof' is also not going to cut it.
Duplicate of #163
First of all, Dubay starts off with a Poisoning the Well attack claiming that NASA says such-and-such -- please, show me EXACTLY where NASA claimed viewing a pass overhead "proves the existence of the ISS".
Is it here? Spot The Space Station
Nope, no mention of proof, prove, existence, or anything thing else. Why is Dubay doing this? Because, if you believe this misrepresentation, then you'll believe the next, and the next -- and he's betting that you don't check up on anything he says -- which should hopefully be obvious by now.
Maybe if Flat Earthers stopped believing the P900 is a telescope they might be able to take better pictures. Hint: that's REALLY only a 357mm lens and not a particularly good one. YES, it has a great Zoom *range* (83x) for a Point & Shoot camera (and decent images for the price) -- but, in reality, the maximum magnification is only 56x and a Dawes' limit of about 2 arcseconds. My cheap telescope has a true 750mm focal length (with a 2x Barlow I can easily push that to 1500mm), 234x power and a Dawe's limit of about 0.77 arcseconds.
If you use a good telescope and a good camera, you can get images like this:
This is just hand-waving by Dubay -- there is no 'proof' here of anything.
There are many jobs that ground-based technologies cannot do as well as a Satellite. Number one is we use Satellites to spy on other nations where planes wouldn't be allowed to fly over. Even flying a stealth plane or U2 is a dead give-away about where you are looking.
Moderate altitude Satellites orbit about every 90 minutes to a few hours (to 24 hours for a geosynchronous Satellite) and give a much wider-angle view of the Earth.
Geosynchronous Satellites allow you to cover a good 30%+ of the Globe with ONE installation, that would requires thousands of ground-based installations -- which means buying the land, getting the Easements, Right of Way, FAA/FCC licenses, and maintenance for all those thousands of installations. When you want to broadcast a single over a large area the Satellite is a tiny fraction of the cost. That's why TV went to East & West coast feed Satellites.
Temperature isn't the same as the Heat transferred which depends on density and other properties of the materials. Since the atmosphere is 10¹¹ to 10²⁵ times less dense the temperature would have be about that many times higher. For more details, see Temperature vs Heat.
More like 2,271 satellites (as of 1997), not that it's relevant really...
Satellite phones can have reception problems everywhere -- but they can also work in the middle of the ocean where there are no towers for thousands of miles. Also, only a very few of those satellites are used for satellite phones. It's almost like Dubay doesn't understand what he is talking about.
No Dubay -- TV satellites are geosynchronous which means the satellite must be orbiting over the equator. So in addition to your latitude affecting the angle of the dish it also matters where in the geosynchronous orbit the satellite is located East/West...
So even on the Equator the satellite might not be located directly overhead but when it IS...
Dubay seemingly wants to confuse you by ignoring the actual spherical geometry and using selective information.
It's not impossible to see bright objects with the naked eye. People mostly only see the low-earth orbit satellites in the evening/morning when the sky is dark and the sun glints off something highly reflective (called a flare). Unlike seeing something in detail, a flare only depends on the brightness of the light.
Just for example, even on my iPhone I can capture two distinct panels on the ISS:
The International Space Station is big enough and low enough to *just* make out some sense of the size with the naked eye but with a good telescope you can absolutely see lots of detail:
The ISS is 356' x 240' or about 430' on the diagonal. Angular size of an object of size 'g' at distance 'r' is given by:
2*arctan(g/2/r) rad ~ 77.22" (arc seconds)
and the maximum angular resolution of a telescope (in radians) is approximately found where ? is the wavelength (say 545 nanometers) and D is the diameter of the aperture of the telescope (0.64 meters in this case):
1.22*(?/D) rad ~ 0.2143" (arc seconds)
This is a very good match with this image. We cannot see sharp features smaller than about a foot.
No, what they said was they didn't have any full-frame, high-resolution color images of the Earth, at that time. Lots of satellites had cameras -- they were lower-Earth orbit taking narrow high-resolution images in bands or lower quality (older) weather satellites.
Furthermore, I don't know if Dubay understands this but you cannot take a single picture of an entire SPHERE in one shot. If you want to capture all sides you need at least about 5 images (Front/Back would leave the seam around the side poorly images so that's 3 images from 3 sides, and then you need to cover the top and the bottom -- that's 5).
And there are ~2,271 Satellites.
Let's take DSCOVR:EPIC as an example. The Image of Earth is about 1506 x 1501 pixels. Since Earth equatorial radius is about 3,963 mi miles we can estimate about 3963/1506 = 2.63 miles per pixel or 17915 meters squared per pixel. HUGE. You aren't going to see little cloud details moving minute to minute.
And they DO move in the timelapse images so that is an inexcusably false assertion.
Himiwari-8 is much closer than DSCOVR and takes 11000 x 11000 pixel images so has more detail and also takes an image every 10 minutes so it's easier to see the motion.
Dubay and other flat earthers have never called out an actual fake where they can demonstrate the veracity of their claim.
You see Pluto the cartoon because you were primed to see it. See Pareidolia and Apophenia
Dubay also lifted this from Jack White without Credit.
False appeal to authority. Furthermore, not a single proof of fraud has been demonstrated.
Notice how Dubay cleverly down-resed the image to the point where you cannot see the NASA frame number to check yourself. But a JPG'ed scan of a film image isn't going to be proof of anything anyway (much less the shape of the Earth) but let's check.
This is frame AS17-134-20471 - available in 4400x4600 pixels resolution.
ELA from fotoforensics.com shows nothing. Nothing I do shows this box.
You download the original and tell me exactly how to produce this (shown here in the original orientation):
See book "Moon Hoax: Debunked! By Paolo Attivissimo" for more debunking.
Taxonomy: Perspective Strawman
First of all, neither of these images claim to be true-color or single images of the Earth (2007, 2012).
So his point is utterly irrelevant and proof only that Dubay is either lying to you on purpose or didn't do his research at all.
But exploring this a bit further, how much of a sphere you can see depends on how high up you are, now doesn't it?
See: Flat Earth Follies: Why Is This Continent So BIG!? NASA FAKE!
Colors depend on the spectrum in which the image was taken and how it was rendered and colorized. Even your camera doesn't take true-color images -- it picks a white balance point and even after that the images often don't look the same colors as when you took the photograph. You have to adjust the tint, exposure, and other factors to get the image to look more realistic. This is just a FACT of photography.
Extensive "moon hoax" debunking can be found at Clavius.org.
And Bart Sibrel is a flat out liar: We know astronauts are lying because they wouldn't swear on a Bible...
If you map the data onto any other shape you have to distort it (this is mathematically provable - see 'Gaussian curvature') and the distances and areas no longer match reality -- only a Globe makes all the distances fit properly.
The most glaring error is that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator does not comport with the Equatorial circumference if you try to force the surface to be flat.
Irrelevant to the shape of the Earth but Google Earth includes Satellite data - Dubay is again just making an assertion to the contrary that he will need to substantiate before it's even worth considering.
How many times can he make this same simple error?
Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
But this time Dubay admits he knows the Earth and atmosphere should be moving together which means all the other times he ignores this he is actually lying about it. And he ignores it here also and makes the same false assertion.
How many times can he make this same simple error?
How many times can he make this same simple error?
How many times can he make this same simple error?
Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
How many times can he make this same simple error?
You cannot locally measure speed.
We have and do measure the rotation of the Earth at ~15.041°/hour. Why not exactly 15° -- that's because hours are defined as 1/24 of the average noon-to-noon period (called a Synodic Day) -- since the Earth moves 1/365.2422 of it's orbit per day this additional angle must be accounted for. This is why a Synodic Day (noon-to-noon) is slightly longer than the astronomical Sidereal Day (1 exact rotation of the Earth). Earth has to rotate fully around and just a smidge more since we defined our hours based on "when the Sun is back to local noon" originally.
This is also why 'noon' doesn't become 'midnight' as the seasons shift due to our orbit.
You can feel the accelerations on the vehicle because the road isn't perfectly smooth and from the engine vibrations -- that's all.
Has Dubay never been on a plane when it hits a very smooth patch of air and you feel entirely motionless?
Prove me wrong -- devise a mechanism that will measure SPEED directly and locally without reference to anything outside the vehicle. You will be a trillionaire because nobody else in the world has ever done this.
These 'proofs' are utterly sophomoric.
Motion sickness is usually because the inner ear is experiencing accelerations that the eye doesn't see. This is because the person and the vehicle are both moving the same, keeping the visual relatively the same while, in reality, they are turning and going up and down hills, and otherwise being accelerated. It has nothing to do with speed.
This is why they often do not get sick (or as sick) when they are driving the car because they remain looking outside the vehicle so the view matches the accelerations -- but look down at a book and they might throw up almost immediately.
Motion sickness caused by the delay in GPU processing as a user turns their head using a VR systems was a big hindrance in their early adoption - now that systems are faster and these delays are minimized most users no longer have this problem.
First of all Dubay doesn't understand what Entropy - Entropy is only increased when WORK is done -- a uniformly spinning object in space is not doing WORK therefore this is not related to thermodynamics.
There are, however, other FORCES that act on the Earth (tidal forces from Sun and Moon are the largest ones). The rotation of the Earth is slowing down by about 1.8 milliseconds per Century right now (this slowdown is not uniform over all time, so you cannot extrapolate it naively).
So once again Dubay is making an utterly uninformed assertion.
I'm starting to think he doesn't actually research any of his answers...
NASA has NEVER ONCE claimed the Earth is a "perfect sphere". Ancient people who hadn't measured the Earth might have -- that's on them.
Since long before we accurately measured the Earth shape to within +/- 1 meter it was known to be an oblate spheroid -- but nobody has ever claimed it was a perfect oblate spheroid either -- land is lumpy.
The land being lumpy is why Neil deGrass Tyson once said it was "LIKE pear-shaped" -- here is the actual context of that statement:
This is due to the mountains just South of the Equator in Ecuador stretching that band just a hair further around than the exact Equator. This is, in no way, in conflict with the Earth being an oblate spheroid with land masses.
In fact, due to the Equatorial bulge the peak of the inactive volcano Chimborazo in Ecuador is actually further from the center of the Earth than the peak of Mt. Everest in Nepal (but the peak of Mt. Everest is further from Sea-Level).
Furthermore, the full frame images of Earth from space are not perfect spheres -- Dubay just didn't bother to even test his hypothesis.
If Dubay is correct in his exegesis then the Bible is utterly disproved - WTG Dubay. However, he is in a very minority of people who would assert that the Bible affirms any such thing.
The Vatican disagrees with him. Even Answers In Genesis thinks this is dumb. If even experts on the text cannot agree on what the passages mean you cannot appeal to it as anything more than toilet paper - it certainly doesn't qualify as a 'proof' -- even colloquially.
Dubay makes assertions here but doesn't substantiate them - irregardless, what people believed in history is irrelevant. Show me the Evidence, it's that simple. Dubay has tried and failed.
It's also false that a spherical Earth was 'an obscure minority' from Pythagoras to Copernicus -- in fact, it was well-established in the 3rd century BCE. By the time of Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195 BC) Earth's size was being measured, it's shape and the great distance of the Sun already well established.
Dubay makes a lot of assertions here, symbols of learning do not a Conspiracy prove.
However, I'll just grant Dubay here that every great learned person and astronaut through all of history are Freemasons. So what now? Did that magically disprove all the hundreds of pieces of evidence I have given herein and on my blog? NO.
Do I rely on NASA for determining the Shape of the Earth? NO.
This is a gross logical fallacy of the first order.
Duplicate of #191, irrelevant to determining the shape of the Earth.
It took us a lot of effort to understand how celestial mechanics work in full detail - just because an ignorant person wouldn't conclude this is irrelevant. The observation has been made - Dubay has failed to give a single valid issue out of 200.
PS. You see Pluto the cartoon because you were primed to see it, without that you would have more likely seen a heart-shape because you were primed to see that by modern iconography. See Pareidolia and Apophenia.
You've utterly mixed up two completely different things.
Earth's gravity keeps the water on the Earth -- it pulls to the center of the Earth. Earth's spin only counteracts 0.3% of this gravity so things do not 'fly off'.
The Sun's gravity pulls the Earth entirely around. The centrifugal force from this is several orders of magnitude smaller than Earth's spin so Earth's gravity already takes care of keeping the Water in place.
However, that little extra tug from the Sun and the Moon (and the little extra lack of a tug on the far side) are responsible for the tides.
Sorry you failed basic science Dubay.
False, we even measure it at the atomic scale using cold atomic interferometry. But you can't just throw shit at the barn and hope it sticks (aka spin a tennis ball with a centrifugal force 1000's of times greater than the Earth's spin that is also IN EARTH'S GRAVITY and expect valid results -- this is a strawman).
So your analogy is false.
But we can make other observations about thing behave when Earth's gravity isn't pulling on them...
Your eyes cannot tell you such things. Repeated experiment has shown this. We've measured Earth's rotation because that CAN be measured.
You cannot locally measure speed. Inertia is the Conservation of Momentum.
Same points repeated ad nauseam. Nothing Dubay says defeats these easily observed facts.
Since we've shown through repeated measurement and observation that the Globe model is the only one that works and Dubay (nor other Flat Earthers) can show a valid objection this appeal to conspiracy is irrelevant.
I HAVE MEASURED IT MYSELF
And I've show in my blog how you can do this also. Flat Earthers refuse. We cannot think for them.
Duplicate of #197
According to physics we would not be 'spinning furiously round' - this is a strawman.
Dubay just keeps repeating the same errors over and over and calling them another proof.
And finally we're at the end of this embarrassing monument to philistinism, with a nice bit of projection from Rowbotham.
The Flat Earth philosophy is devoid of consistency; its details are the result of an entire violation of the laws of legitimate reasoning, and all its premises are assumed. It is, in fact, nothing more than assumption upon assumption, and the conclusions derived therefrom are willfully considered as things proved, and to be employed as truths to substantiate the first and fundamental assumptions.
Congratulations to Dubay for assembling it, even just assembling these replies where most of the content already existed took more time than I would generally care to waste on such a specious claim.
But there we are. I feel that I have given good cause to dismiss Every Single One of these 200 so-called 'proofs'. If you would like to discuss one or present further evidence please join me on Twitter, @ColdDimSum
And now we can look back and summarize the essences of the Flat Earth failures.
Unevidenced Assertion (23 times)
Time and time again we see that Dubay appeals to his own beliefs and to the unevidenced statements of other but has the audacity to call these 'proofs'.
Earth Curvature (22 times)
Dubay bases his arguments on a misunderstanding of Earth's Curvature.
Refraction (13 times)
Where refraction is ignored as a valid component of some long-distance observation.
Haze (11 times)
The effects of Haze are ignored, usually in how this makes lights visible from a longer distance than an observer can actually directly see the light.
Gravity (10 times)
Sorry Flat Earthers, Gravity is well-established by hundreds of scientific studies. Not just that things fall but that things are mutually attracted proportional to their mass. Dubay bases his arguments on this but never actually refutes the directly observed, empirical fact of how mass affects other mass.
Rotational Physics Strawman (8 times)
The physics of rotating bodies is invoked as a 'proof' but is factually incorrect in the application.
Factual Errors (8 times)
Where Dubay tries to introduce something as Fact but is demonstrably wrong. For example, "not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars" when we've measured the parallax to the nearest 120,000+ stars. Even amateurs can measure the annual parallax to the nearest stars.
Earth Rotation (8 times) / Constant Motion ("Don't Feel Like I'm Moving")
Too bad, you cannot feel, detect, or measure speed locally. The Earth rotates, as demonstrated over and over again.
Horizon Geometry ("Looks Flat") (7 times)
As I have shown (in claim #1 and elsewhere on my blog), the Horizon is a smaller circle that curves around the observer, it is NOT the limbs of the Earth. Flat Earthers do not seem to grasp how a Horizon works on a Spheroid, time and time again they try to apply Earth's full curvature (in a plane perpendicular to our line-of-sight) to the Horizon, when it is entirely incorrect to do so.
Level (6 times)
Over and over again Dubay makes an appeal to 'Level' but doesn't grasp the geodetic definition of being perpendicular to Plumb -- which means Level rotates around on a Globe.
Horizon Rises to Eye-Level (2 times)
Flat Earthers never actually measure "level" in their images -- they just blindly assert that the horizon is there at "eye-level". Once you measure it you find that the Horizon falls further and further below level from your current position. This is one of the easier Flat Earth claims to test - get a Theodolite application for your phone the next time you fly and measure it.
And lots of other argument types, this isn't a complete list just the highlights.
I'll keep refining the categories over time but that's the first pass.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature79) From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount McKinley can be seen with the naked eye from 130 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount McKinley’s 20,320 foot summit should be leaning back away from the observer and almost half covered by 9,220 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.
That's the whole mountain? No it isn't. Already disproved by #78
And while this claim does not meet any Burden of Proof (it's bald assertion) I can show good cause for why it is also a factual misrepresentation.
From the original on flickr it looks to me we're higher than 102 feet over the water (we're well over the cranes). This images is too low-resolution and blurry to get a lock on the location but we're about 133 miles from Denali here. The mountains are about 14.4 miles apart so we can use that to get an estimate on the angular height. 2*arctan(14.4/2/133) gives us 6.197° for 168 pixels, which means Denali's 20,310' height would be 2*arctan(20310/2/(133*5280)) or 1.657° which should be about 45 pixels high.
Which puts the base of the mountain well below the horizon here.
We also cannot see exactly where the horizon would be here because there is a large hill in the foreground but let's calculate where it would be and we can see if that looks reasonable.
For 102' observer 9707.6' should be hidden which is (9707.7/20310)*45 or 21.5 pixels up (orange).
For 220' observer 8796.9' should be hidden which is (8796.9/20310)*45 or 19.5 pixels up (green).
Which looks about right -- so this is consistent with the Globe and a significant portion of the mountain is hidden by the curvature of the Earth. If you don't like this approach, too bad -- get better evidence.
And again with the lean is a ridiculous claim, from #78.
80) In Chambers’ Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away! The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away. He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard. Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to fall approximately 5 miles below line of sight!Taxonomy: Tall Tale
These guys Love the late 1800's where nothing can be verified.
Funny how, even with massive telescopes we have today, we cannot see other ships 200 miles from near sea-level. Ships cannot even see fairly tall lighthouses from 200 miles away.
Must have been some magical eyes since a 200' ship at 200 miles would be well below human angular resolution vision to see by half.
How about this -- a repeatable and verifiable observation of a 100' lighthouse from 200 miles out?
Got one?
Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze81) The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.
You can see a light that is illuminating haze/fog/particulates from further away than you can see the actual light.
Also doesn't account for refraction.
Provides no verifiable evidence for the claim.
82) The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
83) The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.Taxonomy: Refraction and Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
84) The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
85) The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
86) The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
87) The lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph’s Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
88) The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
89) The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world were a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight.Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
90) The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.
Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
91) The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze
Duplicate of #81 - ignores refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Taxonomy: Refraction, Haze92) The Notre Dame Antwerp spire stands 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!
Duplicate of #81 - ignores observer height, refraction, reflections, provides no evidence for claim.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature93) The St. George’s Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
There is no evidence supporting this claim. Claims are not 'proof'.
Likely this references the wrong lights and instead is seeing South Stack Lighthouse and Baily Lighthouse. Got evidence otherwise? If the veracity of the claims cannot be demonstrated then it's not a proof and can be dismissed. We've also shown again and again and again that these claims are usually false and the observations, in reality, fit the Globe model.
Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry94) From the highland near Portsmouth Harbor in Hampshire, England looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the entire base of the island, where water and land come together composes a perfectly straight line 22 statute miles long. According to the ball-Earth theory, the Isle of Wight should decline 80 feet from the center on each side to account for the necessary curvature. The cross-hairs of a good theodolite directed there, however, have repeatedly shown the land and water line to be perfectly level.
Duplicate of #1, the horizon curvature around the observer isn't the curve of the Earth and makes it appear considerably flatter. This is a strawman of the actual model.
More inexcusable errors from Flat Earth, Portsmouth Harbor to the Isle of Wight doesn't have anything near 'perfectly straight' for 22 miles.
22 miles wide from 6 miles away would be a view over 122° wide, that's absurd.
And what do we get for evidence? A drawing? That doesn't look 122° wide, that looks like a very narrow view of a couple of hills, maybe on a point.
95) On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry
Duplicate of #1, the horizon curvature around the observer isn't the curve of the Earth.
And more lies and more lack of evidence.
It's not even horizontal to the viewer!
Do you suppose that a coastline as CURVED as this one (Point of Ayr to Holyhead):
Might 'look flat' because you're viewing it on edge? Kind of like the Horizon?
And again, where is the exact evidence for the claim? How are these 'proofs' when they give you NO evidence? It's not in the video either (50:42), just shows you random videos.
From what exact altitude are we seeing this coastline?
These are just parroted lies.
96) From “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” by William Carpenter, “If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the ‘light’ exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the ‘light’ and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of ‘curvature’ demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”Taxonomy: Earth Curvature
Again, zero evidence = zero "proof". You can see the effects of light in the atmosphere long before you can see the actual light. All this is proving is that the horizon position doesn't change as you sail over the curvature of the Earth -- and it shouldn't.
97) NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever.
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation
You cannot locally measure or feel speed alone. No instrument exists which measures speed but in relation to the motion of some other object. The speedometer in your car measures the rotational rate of a wire coming from the axle and assumes the size of the tires to estimate speed - your odometer will be incorrect over time if you change the size of your tires.
In a car, on a train, or on a plane - what you feel are the little accelerations on the moving vehicle as bumps and twists that give you the sensation of speed but if you were isolated inside a box you couldn't tell you were actually moving.
Also, the figures stated are our relative speeds to other objects in the Universe.
Prove me wrong -- show me an electronic device that measures speed while being completely enclosed with no input from the outside world -- no radio signals, no opticals, just measures it locally.
See also #29
Taxonomy: Stellar Parallax98) NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions.
It's hard to measure tiny angles -- we've actually got better at it. See #19
How Polaris 'manages' this is:
#1 is it not directly over anything -- it's 40 arc minutes off center (2/3 degree)
#2 it has moved -- measurably since 1980's (mostly due to precession), it was further from center!
#3 it's moving in the same general direction as we are, our relative speeds are not great
#4 it's very far away which means the angular shifts from our relative motions are very very smallDubay fails on every point.
99) Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.Taxonomy: Polaris
It's not directly over the North Pole, it's 2/3 degree off currently (see #98), so we would expect to see it from just slightly South of the Equator from Sea-level (about 70 miles) and a little further as you get above Sea-Level. In the high mountains, maybe as far South as 5 degrees latitude.
Polaris has never been seen from 20 degrees South latitude at any Earth-bound altitude (from the ISS, sure). No evidence is given to support this claim.
See Nautical Almanac's Polaris Corrections.
Taxonomy: Southern Stars, Unevidenced Assertion100) If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model.
Completely incorrect and unevidenced. Where does Dubay demonstrate any of this with verifiable evidence? These are not subjective claims, these are relatively easy to verify hard facts.
The Southern stars work exactly like the Northern stars except that when you look at the center of rotation the stars are rotating the opposite direction -- but this is relative direction because you are turned 180 degrees. Here are the Southern star trails.
 |
| Image Credit: APOD |
Taxonomy: Southern Stars, Unevidenced Assertion101) Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists. Either way, the direction in which stars move overhead is based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing, not which hemisphere you are in.
Polaris is 2/3 degree off center, Sigma Octantis is slightly over 1 degree. So what?
Both behave identically other than a slight difference is how much they are offset from the center of rotation.
Dubay provides no evidence for his assertion. Sigma Octantis is slightly dimmer (Mag 5.45) than Polaris (1.95) but is easily seen with any telescope and can be seen with the naked eye under dark skies.
"cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes" is a complete fabrication.
It's hard to tell which star it is because it's unremarkable, but it's not hard to see it.
Taxonomy: Perspective102) Some heliocentrists have tried to suggest that the Pole Star’s gradual declination overhead as an observer travels southwards is proof of a globular Earth. Far from it, the declination of the Pole Star or any other object is simply a result of the Law of Perspective on plane (flat) surfaces. The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible. In the ball-Earth model the horizon is claimed to be the curvature of the Earth, whereas in reality, the horizon is known to be simply the vanishing line of perspective based on the strength of your eyes, instruments, weather and altitude.
Flat Earthers love to claim that perspective does so many magic things but this isn't how perspective works.
The issue here is that the angle of Polaris over the horizon shifts degree for degree with your latitude and latitude is 69.1 miles per degree. If you try to plot out the angle of Polaris it becomes impossible if you assume a Flat Earth:
103) There are several constellations which can be seen from far greater distances over the face of the Earth than should be possible if the world were a rotating, revolving, wobbling ball. For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. For this to be possible on a ball-Earth the Southern observers would have to be seeing through hundreds or thousands of miles of bulging Earth to the Northern sky.Taxonomy: Stars
The stars in Ursa Major vary from 61°39' to 49°13' off center, no where close to Polaris -- subtract that from 90° and that's how far South you would expect to see that star from sea level (rising in altitude allows you to see a bit further).
So we expect to see ? UMa as far South as 28°21' and ? UMa from as far South as 40°47'.
Utter hogwash Dubay. And this holds for the Southern stars as well. You can see a star from 1/4 the way around the Earth (basically 90°) in every direction from underneath that star.
104) The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far.Taxonomy: Stars
Duplicate of #103, This time the stars are in the 24° - 28° range so should be seen as far South as 66°
Why does Dubay stop at "90 degrees North latitude"? You can see it far to the other side of the North Pole from the side the star is on as well. Again -- it's 1/4 the way around in every direction, for every star, and it shifts second to second -- which makes Earth a sphere.
Taxonomy: Stars105) Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! These are all only possible because the “hemispheres” are not spheres at all but concentric circles of latitude extending outwards from the central North Pole with the stars rotating over and around.
Duplicate of #103, no Dubay, it's because you don't understand how a sphere works at even a basic level.
Taxonomy: South Pole Assertion106) The so-called “South Pole” is simply an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice marked with a red and white barbershop pole topped with a metal ball-Earth. This ceremonial South Pole is admittedly and provably NOT the actual South Pole, however, because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer. Since this feat has never been achieved, the model remains pure theory, along with the establishment’s excuse that the geomagnetic poles supposedly constantly move around making verification of their claims impossible.
Magnetic compasses don't even point to the rotational North Pole!
And the South Magnetic Pole isn't exactly opposite it:
Taxonomy: Irrelevant Appeal to Magnets, Irrelevant Appeal to Drilling107) Ring magnets of the kind found in loudspeakers have a central North pole with the opposite “South” pole actually being all points along the outer circumference. This perfectly demonstrates the magnetism of our flat Earth, whereas the alleged source of magnetism in the ball-Earth model is emitted from a hypothetical molten magnetic core in the center of the ball which they claim conveniently causes both poles to constantly move thus evading independent verification at their two “ceremonial poles.” In reality the deepest drilling operation in history, the Russian Kola Ultradeep, managed to get only 8 miles down, so the entire ball-Earth model taught in schools showing a crust, outer-mantle, inner-mantle, outer-core and inner-core layers are all purely speculation as we have never penetrated through beyond the crust.
Dubay presents no evidence here that supports a Flat Earth. You don't need to drill into something to know what it's made of, there are many other mechanisms. What we know about the interior of the Earth is from seismic data which is just as valid as putting eyes on it (and often more reliable).
So this is all irrelevant to the Shape of the Earth.
Taxonomy: Magnets, Forces108) The mariner’s compass is an impossible and non-sensical instrument for use on a ball-Earth. It simultaneously points North and South over a flat surface, yet claims to be pin-pointing two constantly moving geomagnetic poles at opposite ends of a spinning sphere originating from a hypothetical molten metal core. If compass needles were actually drawn to the North pole of a globe, the opposing “South” needle would actually be pointing up and off into outer-space.
'constantly moving geomagnetic poles' -- that would be ~0.0007 Miles Per Hour -- and that motion is Thousands of miles away making the angular rate of motion...
Say it with me:
2*arctan(size/2/distance) degrees per hour
2*arctan(0.0007/2/3500) = 0.000011 degrees per hour
Rocketing around the Globe, clearly.
Why would South "point up and off into space?" Gravity around the Globe pulls towards center, the needle is balanced for Gravity -- the magnetic field is extremely weak, it's not going to overcome even the small force of gravity acting on a few grams of mass. It's only because it's balanced on a needle point that it has low enough friction to turn it.
109) There are no fixed “East” or “West” points just as there is no fixed “South.” The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth, with South being all straight lines outwards from the pole, East and West being concentric circles at constant right angles 90 degrees from the pole. A westerly circumnavigation of Earth is thus going around with Polaris continually on your right, while an easterly circumnavigation is going around with Polaris always at your left.Taxonomy: Unevidenced Assertion
Dubay offers no evidence here supporting this assertion that the South Pole isn't a rotationally fixed point, identical to that of the North rotational Pole.
Taxonomy: Circumnavigation
110) Magellan and others’ East/West circumnavigations of Earth are often quoted as proof of the ball model. In actual fact, however, sailing or flying at rights angles to the North pole and eventually returning to one’s original location is no more difficult or mysterious than doing so on a globe. Just as an architect’s compass can place its center-point on a flat piece of paper and trace a circle either way around the “pole,” so can a ship or plane circumnavigate a flat-Earth.
This isn't even an attempted 'proof' -- just a random statement of nonsense.
A mere Circumnavigation doesn't prove it's a globe -- that the equator is a maximum circumference latitude and latitude circles grow progressively smaller in the Southern Latitudes proves it's a spheroid.
However, I think modern Flight Paths are easier to demonstrate than which path and exactly how long each leg was from a sailor from almost 500 years ago was.
Taxonomy: Unevidenced Assertion111) Since the North Pole and Antarctica are covered in ice and guarded “no-fly” zones, no ships or planes have ever been known to circumnavigate the Earth in North/South directions. The only kind of circumnavigation which could not happen on a flat-Earth is North/Southbound, which is likely the very reason for the heavily-enforced flight restrictions. The fact that there has yet to be a single verified North/South circumnavigation of Earth serves as standing proof the world is not a ball.
It is not factually correct that either Pole is a "no-fly" zone -- yes you need Permission to fly almost everywhere. That permission is easy to get if you are qualified.
Ranulph Fiennes and Charles Burton completed a full circumnavigation via both poles in 1982.
If you want to try it go for it -- nobody is stopping any Flat Earth group from undertaking this except themselves.
Flights to and over Antarctica are available if you can afford them.
112) The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth. If time-zones were instead caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours, day would be night and night would be day.Taxonomy: Orbital Mechanics
LOL, No Dubay -- the solar day is defined as the average noon-to-noon time -- this is called a Synodic day (86400 seconds/24 hours). You've confused this with the Sidereal day (23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09054 seconds) which is one exact revolution of Earth relative to the distant stars. The Sidereal period of rotation does cause a 12 hour flip every 6 months!
See: Flat Earth Follies: Why Don't The Days Shift By 12 Hours Between Summer and Winter?
Taxonomy: Gravity113) The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous. Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm.
Um, no dog... Flat Earth is the one that appeals to magic -- how does the Sun stay above a Flat Earth? What makes the Sun move faster in Winter to traverse the greater circumference? How does an Eclipse work? If the Sun and Moon are near how do distant observers on Earth see nearly the exact same side? These and Thousands of other questions all become Magic on Flat Earth.
In the Heliocentric model Gravity is the mutual attraction of Mass proportional to F=GMm/r²
Mass has inertia (or momentum) which means it continues moving unless some Force acts upon it.
Both of these are empirical laws of Nature and out of them you get almost all observed behavior -- large masses will reach a hydrostatic equilibrium forming a spheroid shape (rotating masses will form oblate spheroids); large bodies of gas will reach critical mass and begin to fuse hydrogen into helium, giving off a heat signature exactly as our Sun does; smaller rocky bodies will form elliptical orbits based on the conservation laws; everything we observe falls out of these few simple and empirical Laws.
And yes Gravity is well observed and measured, even at the atomic level.
Given this the fact that a massive body like the Earth pulls everything towards the center is not astonishing in the slightest.
See also: Flat Earth Follies: Gravity is SO STRONG it can hold all the world's oceans, but SO WEAK a butterfly is stronger, LOL stupid Gravity believers
Taxonomy: Gravity114) Quoting, “On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers” by Lacantius, “A sphere where people on the other side live with their feet above their heads, where rain, snow and hail fall upwards, where trees and crops grow upside-down and the sky is lower than the ground? The ancient wonder of the hanging gardens of Babylon dwindle into nothing in comparison to the fields, seas, towns and mountains that pagan philosophers believe to be hanging from the earth without support!”
Duplicate of #113 -- down is towards Earth's center. If Lactantius cannot get this right he's not exactly an authority we can trust (and Dubay cannot get 'Lactantius' right).
Taxonomy: Gravity, Appeal to Fake Physics115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.
There is no "Law of density" - this whole bit is a complete misrepresentation of reality.
Buoyancy is given by:
Buoyant Force = WeightDisplaced
Buoyant Force = MassDisplaced × accelerationOfGravity
Buoyant Force = (DensityofFluid × DisplacedVolume) × accelerationOfGravityAlso written: Bf = p × V × g
So he has appealed to Buoyancy which just proves gravity.
Gravity has, in fact, been measured, 100's of times (tens of thousands if you count all the physics students that do it every year).
For example: Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity
Down in the Heliocentric model (really Globe in this case) is towards the center of gravity of the large planetary body. More misrepresentations of reality.
See: OH Buoyancy! Flerfers are at it again
Taxonomy: Gravity, Orbital Mechanics, Unevidenced Assertion116) There has also never been a single experiment in history showing an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause another smaller mass to orbit around it. The magic theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon and satellites to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth. If these were both true then people should be able to jump up and start orbiting circles around the Earth, or the Moon should have long ago been sucked into the Earth. Neither of these theories have ever been experimentally verified and their alleged results are mutually exclusive.
We can see the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter.
Orbits aren't circular, they are elliptical.
They are not perfect.
They decay and precess over time.
You cannot 'jump and orbit the Earth' because you need to be going 17,000 mph and you cannot do that inside the atmosphere.
Taxonomy: Gravity, Tides117) Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity, especially at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. And if the Moon’s gravity truly did supersede the Earth’s causing the tides to be drawn towards it, there should be nothing to stop them from continuing onwards and upwards towards their great attractor.
Dubay doesn't understand forces - the Force of gravity is GMm/r² which clearly says it depends upon both masses -- they mutually attract. So "larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around" is complete nonsense.
Further, the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the distance squared.
Dubay doesn't understand tides -- Both the Sun and Moon are involved and the differential gravity on both sides of the Earth are important (divided by the distance squared).
So if you just do the fairly simple math, the sum of the forces acting on the surface actually looks something like this:
118) Furthermore, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly and do not follow the Moon. Earth’s lakes, ponds, marshes and other inland bodies of water also inexplicably remain forever outside the Moon’s gravitational grasp! If “gravity” was truly drawing Earth’s oceans up to it, all lakes, ponds and other bodies of standing water should certainly have tides as well.Taxonomy: Gravity, Tides
All bodies of water DO have tides -- exactly proportional to the forces acting upon them. If you do the math instead of just make things up you'll find the sum of those forces acting on a pool are very small and amount to a few atoms of movement. While over the Great Lakes it's about 5 cm. And proportionally larger over the vast Ocean. And the tide is pulled mostly towards the Lunar side but the Earth is rotating so this pushes the tide out in front of the position of the Moon.
The effect of this tide varies with the topography of the water/land interface.
This actually creates a slight gravitational tug forward on the Moon which causes the Lunar orbit to grow about 3.78 cm every year and the Earth's rotation to slow slightly. This is measurable and confirmed.
Taxonomy: Telescopes119) It is claimed that the other planets are spheres and so therefore Earth must also be a sphere. Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.
Here is Mars through Thierry Legault's telescope -- just because it requires better equipment than you have, doesn't make it fake.
here is my own personal image of Saturn through my completely manual 6" telescope:
Even though Mars is closer, it is much smaller so I don't have a good image of it. I also need to wait for it to be on the same side of the Sun as Earth is -- it can take years to get a good image. I don't even have a good Jupiter yet (starting in February 2018 I'll be able to start capturing it).
So don't try to pass of some pathetic P900 garbage to me as "the real planets", I know an out of focus image when I see one.
120) The etymology of the word “planet” actually comes from late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai “wandering (stars),” from planasthai “to wander,” of unknown origin, possibly from PIE *pele “flat, to spread” or notion of “spread out.” And Plane (n) “flat surface,” c. 1600, from Latin planum “flat surface, plane, level, plain,” planus “flat, level, even, plain, clear.” They just added a “t” to our Earth plane and everyone bought it.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Etymology, Unevidenced Assertion
They used to think evil spirits in your head needed to be released and would knock a hole into your skull to let them out... turns out it just relieved intracranial pressure.
How is an etymology copy & paste a 'proof' of Earth's shape?
More on planet.
Taxonomy: Looks The Same Size, Feel Speed121) When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.
You cannot judge distance by apparent size.
Duplicate of #29 -- you cannot feel speed.
122) Quoting Allen Daves, “If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad.”
Taxonomy: Appeal to False Authority, Feel Speed
We can measure Earth's rotation. Cannot feel or locally measure speed.
Flat Earthers don't know what they are doing. Go ahead Dubay -- show me where you triangulated the distance to Polaris at anywhere but 45° -- where you assume the ground is flat but we show you repeatedly the observations of Polaris do not work on a Flat plane.123) Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.
Try it at the Equator -- how far away is it? Funny how triangulation only works for 45° for Flat Earthers.
You appeal to perspective but you don't show how this is possible -- and, in fact, perspective IS the angle -- it doesn't change the angle.
Taxonomy: Sun Hotspot124) Amateur balloon footage taken above the clouds has provided stunning visual proof that the Sun cannot be millions of miles away. In several shots you can see a clear hot-spot reflecting on the clouds directly below the Sun’s spotlight-like influence. If the Sun were actually millions of miles away such a small, localized hot-spot could not occur.
Stunning analysis utterly destroys this claim (and you can also clearly see the horizon sagitta curvature in this footage):
Taxonomy: Sun Rays125) Another proof the Sun is not millions of miles away is found by tracing the angle of sun-rays back to their source above the clouds. There are thousands of pictures showing how sunlight comes down through cloud-cover at a variance of converging angles. The area of convergence is of course the Sun, and is clearly NOT millions of miles away, but rather relatively close to Earth just above the clouds.
Until you analyze where the sun actually is. Do you have verifiable images with a known location, date, and time that aren't photoshopped?
Cuz when I wrote the photographer for this one they said it was a fake but the Flat Earther assured me it was real.
Flat Earthers need to bring the verifiable evidence. I'm not doing more of these, "Do The Research" yourself. Show me an image where the sun is actually over the spot you claim.
And then there are the obvious failures of trying to take 2D angles from 3D space, where is the Sun now?
See: Crepuscular Rays are Parallel
Taxonomy: Orbital Mechanics126) The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun, yet their flawed current model places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout most of the Earth.
No Dubay, the seasons are only caused by the axial tilt. And thanks to the precession of Earth's axis that doesn't occur at any fixed point in the orbit and has measurably shifted over hundreds of years.
During summer the Northern latitudes experience longer days and more direct sunlight and in Northern winter, the Southern latitudes have longer days and more direct sunlight -- regardless of where we are in the elliptical orbit.
It's a very simple model. How can you fail so badly at this?
127) The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer.
Taxonomy: Reflections
Wrong.
This one I personally took on a sharply convexly curved overpass. Clear columning is observed along the convexly curved surface.
Here we observe it with sunlight all the way over the very clearly convexly curved wave!
And here is a diagram showing why.
And we don't see the full column when the water isn't rippled enough.
It's all about the angles and shape of the surface features, nothing what-so-ever to do with overall curvature or shape of the Earth.
Taxonomy: Physics128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.
Um... why would the length of the day have changed that much? The Earth, Moon, and Sun are massive and nearly frictionless.
The Day actually does get about 2 milliseconds longer every 100 years or so right now due to the tides transferring some rotational energy to the Moon's orbit (pushing it every so slightly out).
Dubay makes assertions here but doesn't back them up -- please share your calculations that show exactly what you mean to claim -- only then can we evaluate them.
129) To quote William Carpenter, “Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them moves at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that ‘six thousand million million million tons’ is ‘rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever’ with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a ‘very slow coach,’ with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it - and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window - all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no motion at all and that the Earth is not a globe.”Taxonomy: Appeal to False Authority
This guy doesn't understand the difference between accelerations and speed.
And, Um, I have an equatorial mount so it can move or else I get blurry pictures.
And guess how EQ mounts track? Yeah, in a circle -- not an oval tracking some distant sun that remains over a Flat Earth.
130) From “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion."Taxonomy: Unevidenced Assertion
No evidence is given by Rowbotham or Dubay -- how was it assured the tubes were perfectly parallel? *crickets*
However, Annual parallax is observed and measured to 1/1000th of a degree for over 120,000 starts by the Hipparcos mission.
Taxonomy: Moon Light, Unevidenced Assertion131) NASA and modern astronomy maintain that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like habitation which man has actually flown to and set foot on. They claim the Moon is a non-luminescent planetoid which receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality is, however, that the Moon is observably not a solid body, it is clearly circular, but not spherical, and not in any way an Earth-like planetoid which humans could set foot on. In fact, the Moon has been proven largely transparent and completely self-luminescent, shining with its own unique light.
Um, where was this "proven" exactly? YouTube? LOL
Dude, the moon is a spheroid and it isn't transparent.
Taxonomy: Moon Light132) The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay. This proves that Sun and Moon light are different, unique, and opposites as they are in the geocentric flat model.
No, it proves that lots of UV light kills germs and the massively greater light energy will dry things out before they decay.
Where did you control for these variables as well as humidity, temperature, etc?
133) In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun’s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon’s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the "Lancet Medical Journal,” from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees. So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties.Taxonomy: Moon Light
False, this shows that open sky allows more heat to radiate away than being under a shelter.
Control for having NO moonlight in the same circumstances and you see the same effect -- areas open to the sky will be cooler. And we show a video of measuring the moonlight through a telescope with a significant increase in temperature.
See Flat Earth Follies: Moonlight is cold light
134) Furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun’s light. Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector’s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.Taxonomy: Confuses Diffuse Reflection With Lens
Um... nobody says the Moon is acting as a lens or mirror. Google Foo: 'Diffuse reflection'
Dubay literally just tried to argue that you cannot see any object in the world. /smh/
Taxonomy: Unevidenced Assertion135) Not only is the Moon clearly self-luminescent, shining its own unique light, but it is also largely transparent. When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and “planets” directly through the surface of the Moon! The Royal Astronomical Society has on record many such occurrences throughout history which all defy the heliocentric model.
Duplicate of #131 - #134
Taxonomy: Orbital Mechanics136) Many people think that modern astronomy’s ability to accurately predict lunar and solar eclipses is a result and proof positive of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact of the matter however is that eclipses have been accurately predicted by cultures worldwide for thousands of years before the “heliocentric ball-Earth” was even a glimmer in Copernicus’ imagination. Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today. All the way back in 600 B.C. Thales accurately predicted an eclipse which ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses happen regularly with precision in 18 year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such factors.
Predictive power is just one prong that supports a Scientific Theory. The Saros Cycle of eclipses is purely empirical - it has no explanatory power and no accounting for its own inaccuracies which is why it was replaced with the more accurate Heliocentric model.
The Heliocentric model allows to the second prediction of eclipses and exact modeling of every aspect we observe in the Solar System.
Taxonomy: Orbital Mechanics, Refraction137) Another assumption and supposed proof of Earth’s shape, heliocentrists claim that lunar eclipses are caused by the shadow of the ball-Earth occulting the Moon. They claim the Sun, Earth, and Moon spheres perfectly align like three billiard balls in a row so that the Sun’s light casts the Earth’s shadow onto the Moon. Unfortunately for heliocentrists, this explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon! For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degree syzygy, but as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth’s shadow and some other explanation must be sought.
This is called a Selenelion (see Dec 10, 2010 Selenelion). Lunar eclipses are always at the Full Moon, which rises at sunset and there could be an eclipse at this time because it is well established that when on the horizon, the sun and moon are both about 1/2° (34 arcminutes) below the actual horizon and refraction is bending the light slightly because the lower atmosphere is more dense than the upper atmosphere.
This perfectly fits the Heliocentric model and isn't a 'proof' against it.
See also: In Search of Selenelion
Taxonomy: Perspective, Unevidenced Assertion138) Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ships’ hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth could this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.
Duplicate of #19, #102 - This isn't how Perspective works.
Dubay also provides no actual evidence of this claim over - such evidence would necessarily include evidence that the ground is actually perfectly flat.
And yes, at some point a distant object would become too small to see -- but that isn't what we observe -- the top and bottom portions would remain fully visible and uniformly become smaller. Perspective cannot make something disappear from the bottom up while leaving the top perfectly visible and large enough to see.
139) Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective on flat surfaces, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, not by a wall of curved water! This also proves that the horizon is simply the vanishing line of perspective from your point of view, NOT the alleged “curvature” of Earth.Taxonomy: Perspective
Duplicate of #19, #102, #138
Taxonomy: Earth Rotation140) Foucault’s Pendulums are often quoted as proof of a rotating Earth but upon closer investigation prove the opposite. To begin with, Foucault’s pendulums do not uniformly swing in any one direction. Sometimes they rotate clockwise and sometimes counter-clockwise, sometimes they fail to rotate and sometimes they rotate far too much. The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing. If the alleged constant rotation of the Earth affected pendulums in any way, then there should be no need to manually start pendulums in motion. If the Earth’s diurnal rotation caused the 360 degree uniform diurnal rotation of pendulums, then there should not exist a stationary pendulum anywhere on Earth!
Duplicate of #16 (et al.)
They are very good evidence but not the only evidence -- it is the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence from, every quarter, that demonstrates the rotation of the Earth.
This includes the Gyrocompass, Sagnac interferometer, Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, Compton, Foucault Pendulums, etc.
Taxonomy: Coriolis Effect141) The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.
No, the claim is that large systems will experience the Coriolis Effect and that other forces acting on small basins (sinks, tubs, toilets, etc) will overwhelm the Coriolis Effect unless carefully controlled for.
Failing to do the experiment properly isn't an argument against it. And claiming this is a proof is only proof for dishonesty.
142) People claim that if the Earth were flat, they should be able to use a telescope and see clear across the oceans! This is absurd, however, as the air is full of precipitation especially over the oceans, and especially at the lowest, densest layer of atmosphere is NOT transparent. Picture the blurry haze over roads on hot, humid days. Even the best telescope will blur out long before you could see across an ocean. You can, however, use a telescope to zoom in MUCH more of our flat Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.Taxonomy: Unevidenced Assertion
I agree that haze would, in reality, prevent viewing DIM objects many thousands of miles away. However, since the Sun should be behind those objects, we should be able to see their silhouette and we cannot. So either I shouldn't be able to see the Sun or I should be able to see a silhouette... Flat Earth fails.
We can see many hundreds of miles from high altitudes so no excuse for why I can't see mountains 500 or so miles away.
Further evidence of the Flat Earth failure here is that the horizon is very sharp and distinct from 3 feet above calm waters, it is more distant at 6 feet above the water but still very distinct, and the horizon grows further and further away as we rise up and becomes more and more hazy. So it clearly isn't hazy that is limiting our view.
The unevidenced claim is "You can, however, use a telescope to zoom in MUCH more of our flat Earth than would be possible on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference." -- you'd think Dubay would have included such evidence in his '200 proofs' but all we've found is errors.
Taxonomy: Sun Spotlight, Perspective143) People claim that if the Earth were flat, with the Sun circling over and around us, we should be able to see the Sun from everywhere all over the Earth, and there should be daylight even at night-time. Since the Sun is NOT 93 million miles away but rather just a few thousand and shining down like a spotlight, once it has moved significantly far enough away from your location it becomes invisible beyond the horizon and daylight slowly fades until it completely disappears. If the Sun were 93 million miles away and the Earth a spinning ball, the transition from daylight to night would instead be almost instantaneous as you passed the terminator line.
So many problems with this claim...
If the Sun were close we would see HUGE changes in the size of the Sun.
Some flat Earthers try to claim this is what we see but they ignore the glaring exposure issues in their 'proofs'
And also the sunlight pattern becomes an impossible anti-Sun in the Winter:
And the movement of the Sun and Moon shows a perfectly even motion -- if it were getting more distant we would see smaller and smaller angular motions for the same amount of time.
These poles are equally spaced but notice how they stack up due to perspective, we should see the same effect in the Moon and Sun but we don't.
What we see is equal angles swept out over equal time.
And why would the transition be 'instant' when the atmosphere is bending and scattering light?
Taxonomy: Southern Hemisphere144) Pictures of the Moon appearing upside-down in the Southern hemisphere and right-side up in the North are often cited as proof of the ball-Earth, but once again, upon closer inspection, provide another proof of the flat model. In fact, time-lapse photography shows the Moon itself turns clockwise like a wheel as it circles over and around the Earth. You can find pictures of the Moon at 360 degrees of various inclination from all over the Earth simply depending on where and when the picture was taken.
Dubay is confusing camera orientation with orientation relative to the ground -- the point is that two observers at the same time see it upside down from each other relative to their ground. Not possible on a Flat Earth with a nearby Moon.
If the Moon were close, as Flat Earth claims, then observers far apart would see different sides of the Moon. That doesn't happen in reality only because the Moon is 238,900 miles away.
Taxonomy: Flat Moon145) Heliocentrists believe the Moon is a ball, even though its appearance is clearly that of a flat luminous disc. We only ever see the same one face (albeit at various inclinations) of the Moon, yet it is claimed that there is another “dark side of the Moon” which remains hidden. NASA states the Moon spins opposite the spin of the Earth in such a perfectly synchronized way that the motions cancel each other out so we will conveniently never be able to observe the supposed dark-side of the Moon outside of their terrible fake CGI images. The fact of the matter is, however, if the Moon were a sphere, observers in Antarctica would see a different face from those at the equator, yet they do not – just the same flat face rotated at various degrees.
If the moon were a 'flat disc' then only observers directly underneath it would see it as circular, observers further away would increasingly see an oval. This doesn't happen - again, because the Moon is 238,900 miles away, far away observers see only a few arcminutes of difference (almost unmeasurable even with telescopes).
Any good telescope shows you it is very clearly a spheroid:
Furthermore, distant observers see the parallax shift expected of a Moon 238,900 miles away.
146) The ball-Earth model claims the Moon orbits around the Earth once every 28 days, yet it is plain for anyone to see that the Moon orbits around the Earth every single day! The Moon’s orbit is slightly slower than the Sun’s, but follows the Sun’s same path from Tropic to Tropic, solstice to solstice, making a full circle over the Earth in just under 25 hours.Taxonomy: Unevidenced Assertion
No, it isn't "plain" that this is the case and Dubay has given no evidence that this is the case. What causes the Moon to speed up and slow down between the Tropics? What holds it up? How did you measure that it was zooming around in the sky?
All have simple, evidenced explanations in the Heliocentric model.
Taxonomy: Precise Coincidence
147) The ball-Earth model claims the Sun is precisely 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times further away from Earth making them “falsely” appear exactly the same size. Once again, the ball model asks us to accept as coincidence something that cannot be explained other than by natural design. The Sun and the Moon occupy the same amount of space in the sky and have been measured with sextants to be of equal size and equal distance, so claiming otherwise is against our eyes, experience, experiments and common sense.
No, nobody claims this is Precise, nor is it constant.
Annular eclipses of the Moon are when the moon is closer to the Earth and too small to cover the entire Solar disc, at other times it is wholly blotted out and then some. This is because the Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun distances are not constant and actual eclipses fit the model to a Tee.
148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”
Taxonomy: Stellar Parallax149) Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice.
Duplicate of #19 (et al.)
Parallax measurements to the nearest 120,000+ stars (by the Hipparcos mission) combined with the fact that observed angular shift is given by 2*arctan(size/2/distance) says otherwise.
On a Flat Earth with nearby stars those would be ovals and not circles.
150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.
Taxonomy: Stellar Parallax
Duplicate of #19 (et al.)
Parallax measurements to the nearest 120,000+ stars (by the Hipparcos mission) combined with the fact that observed angular shift is given by 2*arctan(size/2/distance) says otherwise.
On a Flat Earth with nearby stars those would be ovals and not circles.
151) If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.Taxonomy: Stellar Parallax
Duplicate of #19 (et al.)
Parallax measurements to the nearest 120,000+ stars (by the Hipparcos mission) combined with the fact that observed angular shift is given by 2*arctan(size/2/distance) says otherwise.
On a Flat Earth with nearby stars those would be ovals and not circles.
Taxonomy: False Claim152) In 2003, three University Geography professors collaborated in an experiment to prove that the state of Kansas is indeed actually flatter than a pancake! Using topigraphical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake.
Flat Earthers are appealing to studies they clearly didn't read:
Kansas Is Flatter Than a Pancake
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.
By the transitive property of appealing to authority this means are they are now bound to accept that the Earth is an oblate spheroid... Right?
153) Quoting Reverend Thomas Milner’s “Atlas of Physical Geography,” we find that, “Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals. South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles. The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed Ilanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot. The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.”Taxonomy: Earth Curvature, Unevidenced Assertion
This isn't a proof because they are ignoring what the actual survey data says which demonstrates very clearly that it is curved -- it's only 'flat' relative to the curved Geoid of the Earth.
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature154) The Felix Baumgartner Red Bull dive outside camera shows the same amount of “curvature of Earth” from surface-level to jump-height proving it to be a deceiving fish-eyed wide-angle lens, while the inside regular camera shows a perfectly flat horizon, eye level at 128,000 feet, which is only consistent with a flat plane.
What Flat Earthers don't seem to get is that nobody really cares what they think (even me!) -- nobody needs to 'prove' the Earth is curved at this point.
The Red Bull Stratos jump was about breaking a world-record and advertising Red Bull products in the process. They used wide-angle lenses because they show a beautiful wide-field-of-view.
If you don't like the curvilinear distortion it's easy to correct but Flat Earthers over correct and use this to make false representations about the horizon instead.
GIMP can do it, GoPro has software that does it, even for the video. You can use something straight, that doesn't pass through lens center to verify the correction.
And you can use Walter Bislin's tool to generate a horizon for your exact altitude and overlay that -- as I did here.
And the shot from inside the capsule (see analysis) is an EXTREMELY narrow field-of-view which proves nothing -- I literally just cropped this shot from the Rotaflight balloon footage and this is likely a wider field-of-view than from inside the capsule out.
Taxonomy: Horizon Geometry, Horizon Rises to Eye-Level155) Some people claim to have seen the curvature of the Earth out their airplane windows. The glass used in all commercial airplanes, however, is curved to remain flush with the fuselage. This creates a slight effect mixed with confirmation bias people mistake for being the alleged curvature of the Earth. In actuality, the fact that you can see the horizon at eye-level at 35,000 feet out both port/starboard windows proves the Earth is flat. If the Earth were a ball, no matter how big, the horizon would stay exactly where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further to see the horizon at all. Looking straight out the window at 35,000 feet you should see nothing but "outer-space" from the port and starboard windows, as the Earth/horizon are supposed to be BELOW you. If they are visible at eye level outside both side windows, it’s because the Earth is flat!
You DO have to look down to see the horizon -- exactly as much as expected on a Globe of 3959 miles radius and we can observe the Dip angle increasing exactly as expected:
See details: Flat Earth Follies: The Horizon Always Rises To Eye Level
And more: Flat Earth Follies: Magic Fish-Eye Holes in Airplane Windows
156) People also claim to see curvature in Go Pro or other high altitude camera footage of the horizon. While it is true that the horizon often appears convex in such footage, it just as often appears concave or flat depending on the tilt/movement of the camera. The effect is simply a distortion due to wide-angle lenses. In lens-corrected and footage taken without wide-angle technology, all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat.
Taxonomy: Fisheye Fabrication
Unfortunately for Dubay, this is a cropped image and you cannot feed a cropped image into lens correction software. It's also not ok to just over correct until you get a flat horizon which was clearly done here.
The Two Eagles Balloon Story -- you can get the 3000x2250 pixel image from here.
Fortunately, the full image has some actually straight-lines we can use to correct the image.
Corrected using GIMP 2.9 Lens Distort with Main: 64, Edge: -16, Zoom: 16
Try to make that left bar and rigging straight and you distort everything else all to heck -- you'll see why the Flat Earthers cropped it way down. Whoever did that over-correct and crop job is lying to you on purpose.
And again, this claim "all amateur high-altitude horizon shots appear perfectly flat" is completely false and a duplicate dealt with in #1.
Is my correction exactly perfect? I don't know, but it's the correction that works correctly for other GoPro images and it makes the yellow platform square up. I wouldn't personally use this image to make any argument because we lack too much information about it (even basic things like what altitude was this?). That doesn't seem to bother Flat Earthers...
The horizon is horribly indistinct -- I would wager that the dark band is simply the morning shadow and is NOT actually the horizon -- which is why it looks like greater curvature than you would expect. Which also means that this absurd amount of lens 'correction' that someone tried to apply to a cropped image is even more ridiculous. Flat Earth caught faking another "flat horizon"?
Taxonomy: Fluid Dynamics157) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the atmosphere near the equator would be spinning around at over 1000mph, the atmosphere over the mid-latitudes would be spinning around 500mph, and gradually slower down to the poles where the atmosphere would be unaffected at 0mph. In reality, however, the atmosphere at every point on Earth is equally unaffected by this alleged force, as it has never been measured or calculated and proven non-existent by the ability of airplanes to fly unabated in any direction without experiencing any such atmospheric changes.
Duplicate of #23 - Gravity doesn't do the dragging, it just provides some downward (toward Earth center) force. Fluid dynamics does the rest. Dubay offers no evidence here either, just assertion.
158) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the higher the altitude, the faster the spinning atmosphere would have to be turning around the center of rotation. In reality, however, if this were happening then rain and fireworks would behave entirely differently as they fell down through progressively slower and slower spinning atmosphere. Hot-air balloons would also be forced steadily faster Eastwards as they ascended through the ever increasing atmospheric speeds.Taxonomy: Fluid Dynamics, Unevidenced Assertion
I would love to see Dubay's mathematically accurate model for this. No? Oh look, another unevidenced claim.
This is the danger of conflating angular motions with linear speeds. The atmosphere aloft would be moving at the same angular rate as the atmosphere below it -- any deviation from this would be Wind and only that would cause drift.
Since the atmosphere becomes less dense with altitude (thanks to Gravity -- on Flat Earth shouldn't all air be the same 'density'?) fluid dynamics has less impact and pressure differentials can become more extreme, creating the Jet Stream, atmospheric heating from solar radiation produces the large scale Polar, Ferrel, and Hadley circulation cells, and the Coriolis force all play roles.
159) If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.Taxonomy: Vacuum of Space
Duplicate of #158 (et al.), constant angular rotation. Contrary to Flat Earth ignorance, a vacuum does not 'suck' -- rather pressure pushes outwards. But the upper atmosphere is extremely low pressure due to gravity.
See details: Flat Earth Follies: vacuum of space would suck the atmosphere off the Earth
160) It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards. Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body.Taxonomy: Newton Equal And Opposite Reaction
Dubay doesn't seem to understand Equal and Opposite Reaction. Rockets do not "push" off of the atmosphere, they push off of the violently exploding fuel/oxidizer mixture. Rocket Engines get more efficient with altitude because they aren't having to fight the ambient air pressure.
See Also: Quick Debunk: What do rockets 'push off of'?
Taxonomy: Aerodynamics161) If Earth were really a ball, there would be no reason to use rockets for flying into “outer-space” anyway because simply flying an airplane straight at any altitude for long enough should and would send you off into outer-space. To prevent their airplanes from flying tangent to the ball-Earth, pilots would have to constantly course-correct downwards, or else within just a few hours the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph would find themselves lost in “outer-space.” The fact that this never happens, artificial horizons remain level at pilot’s desired altitudes and do NOT require constant downwards adjustments, proves the Earth is not a ball.
No Dubay, airplane engines do not carry their own oxidizer, rocket engines do. Airplanes require aerodynamics to stay aloft, rockets do not. Airplanes go 500 MPH, Orbits are 17,000 MPH.
Airplanes do pitch over to follow Earth Curvature -- it's called Pitch Trim.
Artificial horizon is tied to local gravity so self-corrects for curvature:
Taxonomy: Orbital Mechanics162) All NASA and other “space agencies” rocket launches never go straight up. Every rocket forms a parabolic curve, peaks out, and inevitably starts falling back to Earth. The rockets which are declared “successful” are those few which don’t explode or start falling too soon but make it out of range of spectator view before crashing down into restricted waters and recovered. There is no magic altitude where rockets or anything else can simply go up, up, up and then suddenly just start “free-floating” in space. This is all a science-fiction illusion created by wires, green-screens, dark pools, some permed hair and Zero-G planes.
Orbital launches only have to go 250 miles up but need to reach a horizontal speed of over 17,000 mph -- this is why they turn hard Eastward.
Dubay presents no evidence that they are flying a parabolic curve nor that the entire rocket comes back to Earth or stops ascending.
Orbit has to do with horizontal speed, not some magical altitude -- it's very desirable to each an altitude where the molecules are fewer in number so you aren't dragged down by air resistance.
That 'magic' altitude is the Kármán line at 100km is where an airplane using aerodynamic forces would hit orbital velocity and thus no longer be flying.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Conspiracy, Unevidenced Assertion163) NASA and other space agencies have been caught time and again with air bubbles forming and floating off in their official “outer-space” footage. Astronauts have also been caught using scuba-space-gear, kicking their legs to move, and astronaut Luca Parmitano even almost drowned when water started filling up his helmet while allegedly on a “space-walk.” It is admitted that astronauts train for their “space-walks” in under-water training facilities like NASA’s “Neutral Buoyancy Lab,” but what is obvious from their “space bubbles,” and other blunders is that all official “space-walk” footage is also fake and filmed under-water.
Shame on NASA for showing you how they train for missions? Dubay offers no evidence of actual fraud - 'proof' requires evidence Dubay -- not just assertion. And showing something you don't understand and claiming that is 'proof' is also not going to cut it.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Conspiracy, Unevidenced Assertion164) Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect. Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology.
Taxonomy: Reality is Fake165) NASA claims one can observe the International Space Station pass by overhead proving its existence, yet analysis of the “ISS” seen through zoom cameras proves it to be some type of hologram/drone, not a physical floating space-base. As you can see in my documentary “ISS Hoax,” when zooming in/out, the “ISS” dramatically and impossibly changes shape and color, displaying a prismatic rainbow effect until coming into focus much like an old television turning on/off.
First of all, Dubay starts off with a Poisoning the Well attack claiming that NASA says such-and-such -- please, show me EXACTLY where NASA claimed viewing a pass overhead "proves the existence of the ISS".
Is it here? Spot The Space Station
Nope, no mention of proof, prove, existence, or anything thing else. Why is Dubay doing this? Because, if you believe this misrepresentation, then you'll believe the next, and the next -- and he's betting that you don't check up on anything he says -- which should hopefully be obvious by now.
Maybe if Flat Earthers stopped believing the P900 is a telescope they might be able to take better pictures. Hint: that's REALLY only a 357mm lens and not a particularly good one. YES, it has a great Zoom *range* (83x) for a Point & Shoot camera (and decent images for the price) -- but, in reality, the maximum magnification is only 56x and a Dawes' limit of about 2 arcseconds. My cheap telescope has a true 750mm focal length (with a 2x Barlow I can easily push that to 1500mm), 234x power and a Dawe's limit of about 0.77 arcseconds.
If you use a good telescope and a good camera, you can get images like this:
Taxonomy: Satellites166) The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”
This is just hand-waving by Dubay -- there is no 'proof' here of anything.
There are many jobs that ground-based technologies cannot do as well as a Satellite. Number one is we use Satellites to spy on other nations where planes wouldn't be allowed to fly over. Even flying a stealth plane or U2 is a dead give-away about where you are looking.
Moderate altitude Satellites orbit about every 90 minutes to a few hours (to 24 hours for a geosynchronous Satellite) and give a much wider-angle view of the Earth.
Geosynchronous Satellites allow you to cover a good 30%+ of the Globe with ONE installation, that would requires thousands of ground-based installations -- which means buying the land, getting the Easements, Right of Way, FAA/FCC licenses, and maintenance for all those thousands of installations. When you want to broadcast a single over a large area the Satellite is a tiny fraction of the cost. That's why TV went to East & West coast feed Satellites.
Taxonomy: Satellites167) Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.
Temperature isn't the same as the Heat transferred which depends on density and other properties of the materials. Since the atmosphere is 10¹¹ to 10²⁵ times less dense the temperature would have be about that many times higher. For more details, see Temperature vs Heat.
168) So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.Taxonomy: Satellites
More like 2,271 satellites (as of 1997), not that it's relevant really...
Satellite phones can have reception problems everywhere -- but they can also work in the middle of the ocean where there are no towers for thousands of miles. Also, only a very few of those satellites are used for satellite phones. It's almost like Dubay doesn't understand what he is talking about.
Taxonomy: Satellites169) So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”
No Dubay -- TV satellites are geosynchronous which means the satellite must be orbiting over the equator. So in addition to your latitude affecting the angle of the dish it also matters where in the geosynchronous orbit the satellite is located East/West...
So even on the Equator the satellite might not be located directly overhead but when it IS...
Dubay seemingly wants to confuse you by ignoring the actual spherical geometry and using selective information.
170) People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.Taxonomy: Satellites
It's not impossible to see bright objects with the naked eye. People mostly only see the low-earth orbit satellites in the evening/morning when the sky is dark and the sun glints off something highly reflective (called a flare). Unlike seeing something in detail, a flare only depends on the brightness of the light.
Just for example, even on my iPhone I can capture two distinct panels on the ISS:
The International Space Station is big enough and low enough to *just* make out some sense of the size with the naked eye but with a good telescope you can absolutely see lots of detail:
The ISS is 356' x 240' or about 430' on the diagonal. Angular size of an object of size 'g' at distance 'r' is given by:
2*arctan(g/2/r) rad ~ 77.22" (arc seconds)
and the maximum angular resolution of a telescope (in radians) is approximately found where ? is the wavelength (say 545 nanometers) and D is the diameter of the aperture of the telescope (0.64 meters in this case):
1.22*(?/D) rad ~ 0.2143" (arc seconds)
This is a very good match with this image. We cannot see sharp features smaller than about a foot.
171) NASA claims there are upwards of 20,000 satellites floating around Earth’s upper-atmosphere sending us radio, television, GPS, and taking pictures of the planet. All these supposed satellite pictures, however, are admittedly “composite images, edited in photoshop!” They claim to receive “ribbons of imagery” from satellites which must then be spliced together to create composite images of the Earth, all of which are clearly CGI and not photographs. If Earth were truly a ball with 20,000 satellites orbiting, it would be a simple matter to mount a camera and take some real photographs. The fact that no real satellite photographs of the supposed ball Earth exist in favor of NASA’s “ribbons of composite CG imagery,” is further proof we are not being told the truth.Taxonomy: Satellites
No, what they said was they didn't have any full-frame, high-resolution color images of the Earth, at that time. Lots of satellites had cameras -- they were lower-Earth orbit taking narrow high-resolution images in bands or lower quality (older) weather satellites.
Furthermore, I don't know if Dubay understands this but you cannot take a single picture of an entire SPHERE in one shot. If you want to capture all sides you need at least about 5 images (Front/Back would leave the seam around the side poorly images so that's 3 images from 3 sides, and then you need to cover the top and the bottom -- that's 5).
And there are ~2,271 Satellites.
Tiny cloud details are NOT the same as very large cloud structures -- distant cameras are going to have limited angular resolution (not to mention raw pixels) which means each pixel in your image is going to cover THOUSANDS of square meters. You aren't going to see itty-bitty cloud details.172) If you pick any cloud in the sky and watch for several minutes, two things will happen: the clouds will move and they will morph gradually changing shape. In official NASA footage of the spinning ball Earth, such as the “Galileo” time-lapse video however, clouds are constantly shown for 24+ hours at a time and not moving or morphing whatsoever! This is completely impossible, further proof that NASA produces fake CGI videos, and further evidence that Earth is not a spinning ball.
Let's take DSCOVR:EPIC as an example. The Image of Earth is about 1506 x 1501 pixels. Since Earth equatorial radius is about 3,963 mi miles we can estimate about 3963/1506 = 2.63 miles per pixel or 17915 meters squared per pixel. HUGE. You aren't going to see little cloud details moving minute to minute.
And they DO move in the timelapse images so that is an inexcusably false assertion.
Himiwari-8 is much closer than DSCOVR and takes 11000 x 11000 pixel images so has more detail and also takes an image every 10 minutes so it's easier to see the motion.
Without a citation I can't tell you exactly what that is -- but NASA explained that for many of the Blue Marble images the clouds are an extra layer added because the satellite data specifically excludes clouds. But artistically created images from satellite data, where NASA explains in great detail how they created it are neither fakes nor evidence that the satellite data is made-up.173) NASA has several alleged photographs of the ball-Earth which show several exact duplicate cloud patterns! The likelihood of having two or three clouds of the exact same shape in the same picture is as likely as finding two or three people with exactly the same fingerprints. In fact it is solid proof that the clouds were copied and pasted in a computer program and that such pictures showing a ball-shaped Earth are fakes.
Dubay and other flat earthers have never called out an actual fake where they can demonstrate the veracity of their claim.
Wishful thinking on Dubay's part. Somewhere there is a video of this time period from DSCOVR:EPIC that shows the formation of these clouds. I'll add it later if I find it again.174) NASA graphics artists have placed things like faces, dragons, and even the word “SEX” into cloud patterns over their various ball-Earth pictures. Their recent 2015 Pluto pictures even clearly have a picture of Disney’s “Pluto” the dog layered into the background. Such blatant fraud goes unnoticed by the hypnotized masses, but provides further proof of the illegitimacy of NASA and their spinning ball planet mythos.
You see Pluto the cartoon because you were primed to see it. See Pareidolia and Apophenia
Irrelevant claim, NASA has nothing to do with the factual shape of the Earth. NOTHING you could prove about NASA would change the evidence we have for the Shape of the Earth. Why does Dubay include this utter nonsense as 'proof of Flat Earth' when it's irrelevant? Dishonesty, that's why.175) Professional photo-analysts have dissected several NASA images of the ball-Earth and found undeniable proof of computer editing. For example, images of the Earth allegedly taken from the Moon have proven to be copied and pasted in, as evidenced by rectangular cuts found in the black background around the “Earth” by adjusting brightness and contrast levels. If they were truly on the Moon and Earth was truly a ball, there would be no need to fake such pictures.
Dubay also lifted this from Jack White without Credit.
False appeal to authority. Furthermore, not a single proof of fraud has been demonstrated.
Notice how Dubay cleverly down-resed the image to the point where you cannot see the NASA frame number to check yourself. But a JPG'ed scan of a film image isn't going to be proof of anything anyway (much less the shape of the Earth) but let's check.
This is frame AS17-134-20471 - available in 4400x4600 pixels resolution.
ELA from fotoforensics.com shows nothing. Nothing I do shows this box.
You download the original and tell me exactly how to produce this (shown here in the original orientation):
See book "Moon Hoax: Debunked! By Paolo Attivissimo" for more debunking.
176) When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake.
Taxonomy: Perspective Strawman
First of all, neither of these images claim to be true-color or single images of the Earth (2007, 2012).
So his point is utterly irrelevant and proof only that Dubay is either lying to you on purpose or didn't do his research at all.
But exploring this a bit further, how much of a sphere you can see depends on how high up you are, now doesn't it?
See: Flat Earth Follies: Why Is This Continent So BIG!? NASA FAKE!
Colors depend on the spectrum in which the image was taken and how it was rendered and colorized. Even your camera doesn't take true-color images -- it picks a white balance point and even after that the images often don't look the same colors as when you took the photograph. You have to adjust the tint, exposure, and other factors to get the image to look more realistic. This is just a FACT of photography.
This should read "In the utterly debunked fake-umentary..." (see Moon Hoax: Debunked - 6.11).177) In the documentary “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,” you can watch official leaked NASA footage showing Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, for almost an hour, using transparencies and camera-tricks to fake shots of a round Earth! They communicate over audio with control in Houston about how to accurately stage the shot, and someone keeps prompting them on how to effectively manipulate the camera to achieve the desired effect. First, they blacked out all the windows except for a downward facing circular one, which they aimed the camera towards from several feet away. This created the illusion of a ball-shaped Earth surrounded by the blackness of space, when in fact it was simply a round window in their dark cabin. Neil Armstrong claimed at this point to be 130,000 miles from Earth, half-way to the Moon, but when camera-tricks were finished the viewer could see for themselves the astro-nots were not more than a couple dozen miles above the Earth’s surface, likely flying in a high-altitude plane!
Extensive "moon hoax" debunking can be found at Clavius.org.
And Bart Sibrel is a flat out liar: We know astronauts are lying because they wouldn't swear on a Bible...
Taxonomy: False Assertion178) People claim Google Earth somehow proves the ball model without realizing that Google Earth is simply a composite program of images taken from high-altitude planes and street-level car-cameras superimposed onto a CGI model of a ball Earth. The same could be just as easily modeled onto a square Earth or any other shape and therefore cannot be used as proof of Earth’s rotundity.
If you map the data onto any other shape you have to distort it (this is mathematically provable - see 'Gaussian curvature') and the distances and areas no longer match reality -- only a Globe makes all the distances fit properly.
The most glaring error is that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator does not comport with the Equatorial circumference if you try to force the surface to be flat.
Irrelevant to the shape of the Earth but Google Earth includes Satellite data - Dubay is again just making an assertion to the contrary that he will need to substantiate before it's even worth considering.
179) If the Earth were constantly spinning Eastwards 1000mph then airplane flight durations going Eastwards vs. Westwards should be significantly different. If the average commercial airliner travels 500mph, it follows that Westbound equatorial flights should reach their destination at approximately thrice the speed as their Eastbound return flights. In reality, however, the differences in East/Westbound flight durations usually amount to a matter of minutes, and nothing near what would occur on a 1000mph spinning ball Earth.Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
How many times can he make this same simple error?
180) The spinning ball model dictates that the Earth and atmosphere would be moving together at approximately 500mph at the mid-latitudes where an LA to NYC flight takes place. The average commercial airliner traveling 500mph takes 5.5 hours traveling East with the alleged rotation of the Earth, so the return flight West should take only 2.75 hours, but in fact we find the average NYC to LA flight takes 6 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.
Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
But this time Dubay admits he knows the Earth and atmosphere should be moving together which means all the other times he ignores this he is actually lying about it. And he ignores it here also and makes the same false assertion.
181) Flights Eastwards with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth from Tokyo to LA take an average of 10.5 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 5.25 hours, but in actual fact take an average of 11.5 hours, another flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
How many times can he make this same simple error?
182) Flights Eastwards with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth from NY to London take an average of 7 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 3.5 hours, but in actual fact take an average of 7.5 hours, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
How many times can he make this same simple error?
183) Flights Eastwards from Chicago to Boston with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth take an average of 2.25 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of just over an hour, but in actual fact take an average of 2.75 hours, once again, completely inconsistent with the spinning ball model.Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
How many times can he make this same simple error?
184) Flights Eastwards from Paris to Rome with the alleged spin of the ball-Earth take an average of 2 hours, therefore the return flights Westwards against the alleged spin should take an average of 1 hour, but in actual fact have an average flight duration of 2 hours 10 minutes, a flight time totally inconsistent with the spinning ball model.
Taxonomy: Ignores Inertia/Conservation of Momentum
How many times can he make this same simple error?
185) We are told that the Earth and atmosphere spin together at such a perfect uniform velocity that no one in history has ever seen, heard, felt or measured the supposed 1000mph movement. This is then often compared to traveling in a car at uniform velocity, where we only feel the movement during acceleration or deceleration. In reality, however, even with eyes closed, windows up, over smooth tar in a luxury car at a mere uniform 50mph, the movement absolutely can be felt! At 20 times this speed, Earth’s imaginary 1000mph spin would most certainly be noticeable, felt, seen and heard by all.Taxonomy: Speed Strawman / Inertia Strawman
You cannot locally measure speed.
We have and do measure the rotation of the Earth at ~15.041°/hour. Why not exactly 15° -- that's because hours are defined as 1/24 of the average noon-to-noon period (called a Synodic Day) -- since the Earth moves 1/365.2422 of it's orbit per day this additional angle must be accounted for. This is why a Synodic Day (noon-to-noon) is slightly longer than the astronomical Sidereal Day (1 exact rotation of the Earth). Earth has to rotate fully around and just a smidge more since we defined our hours based on "when the Sun is back to local noon" originally.
This is also why 'noon' doesn't become 'midnight' as the seasons shift due to our orbit.
You can feel the accelerations on the vehicle because the road isn't perfectly smooth and from the engine vibrations -- that's all.
Has Dubay never been on a plane when it hits a very smooth patch of air and you feel entirely motionless?
Prove me wrong -- devise a mechanism that will measure SPEED directly and locally without reference to anything outside the vehicle. You will be a trillionaire because nobody else in the world has ever done this.
These 'proofs' are utterly sophomoric.
186) People sensitive to motion sickness feel distinct unease and physical discomfort from motion as slight as an elevator or a train ride. This means that the 1000mph alleged uniform spin of the Earth has no effect on such people, but add an extra 50mph uniform velocity of a car and their stomach starts turning knots. The idea that motion sickness is nowhere apparent in anyone at 1000mph, but suddenly comes about at 1050mph is ridiculous and proves the Earth is not in motion whatsoever.Taxonomy: Speed
Motion sickness is usually because the inner ear is experiencing accelerations that the eye doesn't see. This is because the person and the vehicle are both moving the same, keeping the visual relatively the same while, in reality, they are turning and going up and down hills, and otherwise being accelerated. It has nothing to do with speed.
This is why they often do not get sick (or as sick) when they are driving the car because they remain looking outside the vehicle so the view matches the accelerations -- but look down at a book and they might throw up almost immediately.
Motion sickness caused by the delay in GPU processing as a user turns their head using a VR systems was a big hindrance in their early adoption - now that systems are faster and these delays are minimized most users no longer have this problem.
187) The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch.Taxonomy: Entropy
First of all Dubay doesn't understand what Entropy - Entropy is only increased when WORK is done -- a uniformly spinning object in space is not doing WORK therefore this is not related to thermodynamics.
There are, however, other FORCES that act on the Earth (tidal forces from Sun and Moon are the largest ones). The rotation of the Earth is slowing down by about 1.8 milliseconds per Century right now (this slowdown is not uniform over all time, so you cannot extrapolate it naively).
So once again Dubay is making an utterly uninformed assertion.
I'm starting to think he doesn't actually research any of his answers...
Taxonomy: Earth Curvature188) Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.
NASA has NEVER ONCE claimed the Earth is a "perfect sphere". Ancient people who hadn't measured the Earth might have -- that's on them.
Since long before we accurately measured the Earth shape to within +/- 1 meter it was known to be an oblate spheroid -- but nobody has ever claimed it was a perfect oblate spheroid either -- land is lumpy.
The land being lumpy is why Neil deGrass Tyson once said it was "LIKE pear-shaped" -- here is the actual context of that statement:
This is due to the mountains just South of the Equator in Ecuador stretching that band just a hair further around than the exact Equator. This is, in no way, in conflict with the Earth being an oblate spheroid with land masses.
In fact, due to the Equatorial bulge the peak of the inactive volcano Chimborazo in Ecuador is actually further from the center of the Earth than the peak of Mt. Everest in Nepal (but the peak of Mt. Everest is further from Sea-Level).
Furthermore, the full frame images of Earth from space are not perfect spheres -- Dubay just didn't bother to even test his hypothesis.
Taxonomy: Cuz Bible189) The Bible, Koran, Srimad Bhagavatam, and many other holy books describe and purport the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10 both read, “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” And Psalm 93:1 says, “The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” The Bible also repeatedly affirms that the Earth is “outstretched” as a plane, with the outstretched heavens everywhere above (not all around) giving a scriptural proof the Earth is not a spinning ball.
If Dubay is correct in his exegesis then the Bible is utterly disproved - WTG Dubay. However, he is in a very minority of people who would assert that the Bible affirms any such thing.
The Vatican disagrees with him. Even Answers In Genesis thinks this is dumb. If even experts on the text cannot agree on what the passages mean you cannot appeal to it as anything more than toilet paper - it certainly doesn't qualify as a 'proof' -- even colloquially.
190) Cultures the world over throughout history have all described and purported the existence of a geocentric, stationary flat Earth. Egyptians, Indians, Mayans, Chinese, Native Americans and literally every ancient civilization on Earth had a geocentric flat-Earth cosmology. Before Pythagoras, the idea of a spinning ball-Earth was non-existent and even after Pythagoras it remained an obscure minority view until 2000 years later when Copernicus began reviving the heliocentric theory.Taxonomy: Appeal to History, Unevidenced Assertion
Dubay makes assertions here but doesn't substantiate them - irregardless, what people believed in history is irrelevant. Show me the Evidence, it's that simple. Dubay has tried and failed.
It's also false that a spherical Earth was 'an obscure minority' from Pythagoras to Copernicus -- in fact, it was well-established in the 3rd century BCE. By the time of Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195 BC) Earth's size was being measured, it's shape and the great distance of the Sun already well established.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Conspiracy191) From Pythagoras to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, to modern astronauts like Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins, to director of NASA and Grand Commander of the 33rd degree C. Fred Kleinknecht, the founding fathers of the spinning ball mythos have all been Freemasons! The fact that so many members of this, the largest and oldest secret society in existence have all been co-conspirators bringing about this literal “planetary revolution” is beyond the possibility of coincidence and provides proof of organized collusion in creating and maintaining this multi-generational deception.
Dubay makes a lot of assertions here, symbols of learning do not a Conspiracy prove.
However, I'll just grant Dubay here that every great learned person and astronaut through all of history are Freemasons. So what now? Did that magically disprove all the hundreds of pieces of evidence I have given herein and on my blog? NO.
Do I rely on NASA for determining the Shape of the Earth? NO.
This is a gross logical fallacy of the first order.
Taxonomy: Appeal to Conspiracy192) Quoting “Terra Firma” by David Wardlaw Scott, “The system of the Universe, as taught by Modern Astronomers, being founded entirely on theory, for the truth of which they are unable to advance one single real proof, they have entrenched themselves in a conspiracy of silence, and decline to answer any objections which may be made to their hypotheses … Copernicus himself, who revived the theory of the heathen philosopher Pythagoras, and his great exponent Sir Isaac Newton, confessed that their system of a revolving Earth was only a possibility, and could not be proved by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it with the name of an ‘exact science,’ yea, according to them, ‘the most exact of all the sciences.’ Yet one Astronomer Royal for England once said, speaking of the motion of the whole Solar system: ‘The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if any one can help me out of it.’ What a very sad position for an ‘exact science’ to be in is this!”
Duplicate of #191, irrelevant to determining the shape of the Earth.
Taxonomy: Celestial Mechanics, Pareidolia193) No child or un-indoctrinated man in their right-mind would ever conclude or even conceive given to their own devices, based on their own personal observations, that the Earth was a spinning ball revolving around the Sun! Such imaginative theories nowhere present in anyone’s daily experience require and have required massive amounts of constant propaganda to uphold the illusion.
It took us a lot of effort to understand how celestial mechanics work in full detail - just because an ignorant person wouldn't conclude this is irrelevant. The observation has been made - Dubay has failed to give a single valid issue out of 200.
PS. You see Pluto the cartoon because you were primed to see it, without that you would have more likely seen a heart-shape because you were primed to see that by modern iconography. See Pareidolia and Apophenia.
194) From David Wardlaw Scott, “I remember being taught when a boy, that the Earth was a great ball, revolving at a very rapid rate around the Sun, and, when I expressed to my teacher my fears that the waters of the oceans would tumble off, I was told that they were prevented from doing so by Newton’s great law of Gravitation, which kept everything in its proper place. I presume that my countenance must have shown some signs of incredulity, for my teacher immediately added - I can show you a direct proof of this; a man can whirl around his head a pail filled with water without its being spilt, and so, in like manner, can the oceans be carried round the Sun without losing a drop. As this illustration was evidently intended to settle the matter, I then said no more upon the subject. Had such been proposed to me afterwards as a man, I would have answered somewhat as follows - Sir, I beg to say that the illustration you have given of a man whirling a pail of water round his head, and the oceans revolving round the Sun, does not in any degree confirm your argument, because the water in the two cases is placed under entirely different circumstances, but, to be of any value, the conditions in each case must be the same, which here they are not. The pail is a hollow vessel which holds the water inside it, whereas, according to your teaching, the Earth is a ball, with a continuous curvature outside, which, in agreement with the laws of nature, could not retain any water.”Taxonomy: Gravity
You've utterly mixed up two completely different things.
Earth's gravity keeps the water on the Earth -- it pulls to the center of the Earth. Earth's spin only counteracts 0.3% of this gravity so things do not 'fly off'.
The Sun's gravity pulls the Earth entirely around. The centrifugal force from this is several orders of magnitude smaller than Earth's spin so Earth's gravity already takes care of keeping the Water in place.
However, that little extra tug from the Sun and the Moon (and the little extra lack of a tug on the far side) are responsible for the tides.
Sorry you failed basic science Dubay.
195) Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They claim that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. When such an unproven theory goes against all experiments, experience and common sense, it is high time to drop the theory.Taxonomy: Gravity
False, we even measure it at the atomic scale using cold atomic interferometry. But you can't just throw shit at the barn and hope it sticks (aka spin a tennis ball with a centrifugal force 1000's of times greater than the Earth's spin that is also IN EARTH'S GRAVITY and expect valid results -- this is a strawman).
So your analogy is false.
But we can make other observations about thing behave when Earth's gravity isn't pulling on them...
Taxonomy: Speed196) Quoting Marshall Hall, “In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude."
Your eyes cannot tell you such things. Repeated experiment has shown this. We've measured Earth's rotation because that CAN be measured.
You cannot locally measure speed. Inertia is the Conservation of Momentum.
Same points repeated ad nauseam. Nothing Dubay says defeats these easily observed facts.
Taxonomy: Irrelevant Appeal to Conspiracy197) Some people claim there is no motive for such a grand-scale deception and that flat or a ball makes no difference. By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these Masons have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible. By surreptitiously indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist Sun-worship, not only do we lose faith in anything beyond the material, we gain absolute faith in materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism. If there is no God, and everyone is just an accident, then all that really matters is me, me, me. They have turned Madonna, the Mother of God, into a material girl living in a material world. Their rich, powerful corporations with slick Sun-cult logos sell us idols to worship, slowly taking over the world while we tacitly believe their “science,” vote for their politicians, buy their products, listen to their music, and watch their movies, sacrificing our souls at the altar of materialism. To quote Morris Kline, “The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations.”
Since we've shown through repeated measurement and observation that the Globe model is the only one that works and Dubay (nor other Flat Earthers) can show a valid objection this appeal to conspiracy is irrelevant.
I HAVE MEASURED IT MYSELF
And I've show in my blog how you can do this also. Flat Earthers refuse. We cannot think for them.
198) Some say the idea of an inter-generational world-wide conspiracy to delude the masses sounds implausible or unrealistic, but these people need only familiarize themselves with the works and writings of Freemasons themselves, for example John Robison who exposed this in his 1798 book, “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried Out in the Secret Meetings of the Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.” Supreme Commander of the 33rd degree Albert Pike was quite forth-coming in several letters regarding the Masons ultimate goal of world domination, and in the Zionist “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” the exact plan by which this would be and has been carried out is completely disclosed.Taxonomy: Irrelevant Appeal to Conspiracy
Duplicate of #197
199) From “Foundations of Many Generations” by E. Eschini, “The one thing the fable of the revolving Earth has done, it has shown the terrible power of a lie, a lie has the power to make a man a mental slave, so that he dares not back the evidence of his own senses. To deny the plain and obvious movement of the Sun he sees before him. When he feels himself standing on an Earth utterly devoid of motion, at the suggestion of someone else he is prepared to accept that he is spinning furiously round. When he sees a bird flying, and gaining over the ground, he is prepared to believe that the ground is really travelling a great number of times faster than the bird, finally, in order to uphold the imagination of a madman, he is prepared to accuse his Maker of forming him a sensiferous lie.”Taxonomy: Irrelevant Assertion / Centrifugal Force Strawman / Inertial Strawman
According to physics we would not be 'spinning furiously round' - this is a strawman.
Dubay just keeps repeating the same errors over and over and calling them another proof.
200) And finally, from Dr. Rowbotham, “Thus we see that this Newtonian philosophy is devoid of consistency; its details are the result of an entire violation of the laws of legitimate reasoning, and all its premises are assumed. It is, in fact, nothing more than assumption upon assumption, and the conclusions derived therefrom are willfully considered as things proved, and to be employed as truths to substantiate the first and fundamental assumptions. Such a ‘juggle and jumble’ of fancies and falsehoods extended and intensified as in theoretical astronomy is calculated to make the unprejudiced inquirer revolt with horror from the terrible conjuration which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its further progress; to endeavour to over-throw the entire edifice, and to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the learning, the patience, the perseverance and devotion for which they have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld; but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot be otherwise than regretted, and ought to be by every possible means uprooted.”
And finally we're at the end of this embarrassing monument to philistinism, with a nice bit of projection from Rowbotham.
The Flat Earth philosophy is devoid of consistency; its details are the result of an entire violation of the laws of legitimate reasoning, and all its premises are assumed. It is, in fact, nothing more than assumption upon assumption, and the conclusions derived therefrom are willfully considered as things proved, and to be employed as truths to substantiate the first and fundamental assumptions.
Congratulations to Dubay for assembling it, even just assembling these replies where most of the content already existed took more time than I would generally care to waste on such a specious claim.
But there we are. I feel that I have given good cause to dismiss Every Single One of these 200 so-called 'proofs'. If you would like to discuss one or present further evidence please join me on Twitter, @ColdDimSum
And now we can look back and summarize the essences of the Flat Earth failures.
Unevidenced Assertion (23 times)
Time and time again we see that Dubay appeals to his own beliefs and to the unevidenced statements of other but has the audacity to call these 'proofs'.
Earth Curvature (22 times)
Dubay bases his arguments on a misunderstanding of Earth's Curvature.
Refraction (13 times)
Where refraction is ignored as a valid component of some long-distance observation.
Haze (11 times)
The effects of Haze are ignored, usually in how this makes lights visible from a longer distance than an observer can actually directly see the light.
Gravity (10 times)
Sorry Flat Earthers, Gravity is well-established by hundreds of scientific studies. Not just that things fall but that things are mutually attracted proportional to their mass. Dubay bases his arguments on this but never actually refutes the directly observed, empirical fact of how mass affects other mass.
Rotational Physics Strawman (8 times)
The physics of rotating bodies is invoked as a 'proof' but is factually incorrect in the application.
Factual Errors (8 times)
Where Dubay tries to introduce something as Fact but is demonstrably wrong. For example, "not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars" when we've measured the parallax to the nearest 120,000+ stars. Even amateurs can measure the annual parallax to the nearest stars.
Earth Rotation (8 times) / Constant Motion ("Don't Feel Like I'm Moving")
Too bad, you cannot feel, detect, or measure speed locally. The Earth rotates, as demonstrated over and over again.
Horizon Geometry ("Looks Flat") (7 times)
As I have shown (in claim #1 and elsewhere on my blog), the Horizon is a smaller circle that curves around the observer, it is NOT the limbs of the Earth. Flat Earthers do not seem to grasp how a Horizon works on a Spheroid, time and time again they try to apply Earth's full curvature (in a plane perpendicular to our line-of-sight) to the Horizon, when it is entirely incorrect to do so.
Level (6 times)
Over and over again Dubay makes an appeal to 'Level' but doesn't grasp the geodetic definition of being perpendicular to Plumb -- which means Level rotates around on a Globe.
Horizon Rises to Eye-Level (2 times)
Flat Earthers never actually measure "level" in their images -- they just blindly assert that the horizon is there at "eye-level". Once you measure it you find that the Horizon falls further and further below level from your current position. This is one of the easier Flat Earth claims to test - get a Theodolite application for your phone the next time you fly and measure it.
And lots of other argument types, this isn't a complete list just the highlights.
I'll keep refining the categories over time but that's the first pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.