Samstag, 20. Februar 2016

Debunking Dubay 110-119/200

#110 Empty claim
The fact that you can find a 2D-projection of earth where equatorial circumnavigation is possible, is in no way a disproof of a globe, nor a proof for a flat earth. You can, however, point out that distances (except for lines through the center), surface areas and angles on the presented azimuthal projection in no way match up with what we see and experience in our world (map problem #34/35). Magellan's journeys would have taken very much longer if you factored in the distances taken from a flat earth map; just like any flight that you take, especially in the southern hemisphere (flight problem #43 and many more).

#111 Empty claim + Incomprehension of the model
1) If the continent of Antarctica covers the south polar region of the globe (just like the north polar region is mostly covered in ice), how is a ship supposed to circumnavigate the earth from north to south? This is not possible on a globe and the fact that it hasn't happened, doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's a purely illogical statement.
2) As shown in #43, commercial airlines have no reason (geometrically) to fly directly over Antarctica. All existing available connections between Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and South America (Santiago-Sydney or Auckland-Johannesburg, you name it) have their shortest distances between each other not leading over the mainland of Antarctica. Here is Santiago-Sydney again:
3) How big is Antarctica? 14 million km². Let us please just for once put that into perspective. That means it is bigger than Brazil (9m. km²), bigger than the USA, China, Canada (10m. km² each) and almost as big as Russia (17m. km²). It's even bigger than the US and India (10+3m. km²) combined. It is a huge place. And not only that, it is also surrounded by lots and lots of water (mind the projection): 

Now think about making an emergency landing in the middle of that. With the nearest big city, Melbourne, being 5.800km away (3.600 miles). At −63 °C (−81 °F). And that is AVERAGE temperature in Antarctic winter. It's huge, it's barren, dark (for half a year) and it's terribly cold. Making an emergency landing in this place means that you would be frozen to death long before anybody could reach you. Compared to the South Pole there is not one place on earth that is even a close match in terms of desolation. If you think Norilsk in Russia is a remote and desolate place, think again.
That is why nobody wants to go there. With the exception of scientists, daredevil explorers and maybe rich people who ran out of things to do. And these are exactly the people you find, when you arrange a flight and go there:

Oh, and don't forget Werner Herzog, of course:

#112 Incomprehension of the model
Ok: How long is a day? Obviously 24 hours. That is the time it takes for the sun to reach the same longitude after 1 rotation of the earth. The big problem begins with the orbit of the earth:
When the earth has travelled a certain distance on its orbit after one day, would it have to rotate exactly 360° to complete one day, to look at the sun with the same angle?
Obviously no. Because it would have to rotate a little bit more to compensate for the distance it has travelled. Because one year is 365 days long and a circle has 360° it follows that the earth has to rotate roughly one extra degree to complete one day. That means, an exact 360° rotation of the earth doesn't take exactly 24 hours, but a little less.
In fact it takes 23 hours and 56 minutes. That's what's called a sidereal day:
So we're 4 minutes off a 360° rotation each day. Let's calculate how much that offset is after roughly half a year (182 days):

So, yes, after roughly half an orbit we are close to a half-day off in our rotation. And that is the reason why "noon" after exactly 6 months is still "noon" because we are now looking at the sun from the opposite side! But only because geometry implies that there is a difference between a "day" and 360° rotation.

#113 Empty claim.
Well, just being unable to wrap your head around the idea that an invisible force can be strong enough to make materially seperate objects stick to each other, even when turned upside down, is in no way a disproof of the existence of that force.
The same way a person probably wouldn't believe in the existence of magnetism until being presented with actual magnets. Centuries ago many people wouldn't have believed that radios or airplanes could work because they had no understanding of their functional principles.
Again, calling something "magic" usually means that you just didn't get the trick.

#114 see #113

#115 Incomprehension of the model + False claim
"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"

No, they did not. Archimedes principle describes immersed and floating  (not falling) objects. Galileo (with his Pisa-experiment for instance) came closer to the truth, but still didn't have perfect explanations. If you tried to explain a falling object's acceleration only by density, there would be no way to explain slower acceleration with rising altitude (even in a vacuum). Get a scale, weigh an object with exactly 1000g at sea-level, then go up on a mountain and measure again. At 4km altitude you get roughly 998.8g. With decreasing air density at higher altitude (less buoancy) you would expect an INCREASE. The decrease is perfectly explained by gravity which decreases with distance from the center of gravity squared:

And repeating this inside a vacuum chamber will show you the exact value that is predicted with the existence of a gravitational force: 1000g*(6371/6375)²= 998.75 g (That's what the scale shows. In fact, the object's mass does not change, but it's acceleration. The scale however is calibrated for g=9.81 m/s² and will show less weight when it's 9.80 m/s² as in 4km altitude)
And it's funny that Mr. Dubay even mentions buoyancy because, in fact, the derivation of buoyancy only works with gravity as precondition:

"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 "

False claim. The first experiment to do exactly that is the so-called "Cavendish experiment", carried out and published by Henry Cavendish around 1798. Using a torsion balance, Cavendish was able to measure the gravitational force of attraction between two pairs of lead spheres respectively.

#116 Incomprehension of the model + False claim
A constant orbit of an object is defined by a certain velocity that creates a certain inertial (centrifugal) force, when acted upon by another force (in this case: Gravity), with both forces being of equal value. So, where is the object supposed to go? Following the orbit, of course.
The gravitiational force decreases by the distance to the center of gravity squared:

So for ISS at 400km altitude it's 9.81m/s²*(6371/6771)² =  8.69 m/s².
For the pull between earth and moon at 385,000km it's 9.81m/s2*(6371/385000)² = 0.0027 m/s²

That's why the moon even with its huge mass (higher inertia) needs less speed than the ISS to stay in a stable orbit.

See #115 as to why the "there has never been an experiment"-argument is illogical from an earth-bound perspective. You can't create a gravitational force on (and from) earth that obliterates the earth's gravitational pull. Secondly, there have been experiments. But in order to do these experiments, you have to leave earth! Every space probe (and ship when including Apollo missions) that has left an earth-bound orbit counts as evidence. I know flatearthers dispute all space exploration by and large. That doesn't change the fact, however, that the no-experiment-on-earth-argument is absolute nonsense to begin with.

#117 Incomprehension of the model
If you want to disprove Newton, you first have to cite him correctly. He doesn't say that "the larger object should attract the smaller to it and not the other way around ". His third law of motion clearly states:
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."'s_laws_of_motion

Therefore, the earth pulls the moon and the moon pulls the earth. And inertia is the key factor why the moon can be held in an orbit around the earth, while the earth doesn't experience much more of a wobble than the changing tides of the oceans.
#118 Incomprehension of the model
1) The orbit of the moon is not uniform. The moons' distance varies between 363,000km and 405,000km and not only that, the orbit itself rotates over 9 years.

2) Tides are not only influenced by the moon. The sun's tidal force is 46% as large as that of the moon. That's the reason why we have spring and neap tides.

3) A body of water has to be large enough for it to be noticeably tide-effected. Big lakes have tides in the cm-range, but they are almost not noticeable.

#119 False claim
The planets "differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only"? Wrong in so many ways. They differ in:

-Brightness (Apparent magnitude). Venus, Jupiter and Mars (at times) are brighter than the brightest stars.

-Apparent size

-They have phases

-The inner planets transit the sun

-Their change of apparent shape by rotation is easily evidenced
And these are just the most obvious from the top of my head. And by the way, these are all observations that everyone can do in his own backyard. Mr. Dubay has clearly never looked through a properly installed and mounted telescope. Even with a hand-baggage-size refractor telescope you can observe enough detail on Jupiter to see it complete a full rotation during one night (10h for one rotation). If you're not willing to buy one and try for yourself, there are thousands of videos of amateur astronomers using very basic hardware that show enough details on planets to be able to see that. Even a decent pair of binoculars with 8x magnification can already show you the 4 bigger moons of Jupiter in different positions every night.

Yes, just for one brief moment, even the moon may appear disc-shaped to the naked eye. But that obvously means nothing. With a regular pair of binoculars you can already see shadows from the moon's craters that only work on a sphere. And anybody can put a camera on a tripod and take pictures of the moon for one month and he/she will see something like this (called libration):
As for the planets, you obviously need to take your pictures over a longer time. But you will be rewarded with great views of rotating, phase-changing and librating spheres.


  1. #115: Just to be clear, there ARE experiments which "shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it". Just see here: We did this in school over 35 years ago when I was about 15... Nothing special about that.

    1. Well, what do you know, I wasn't aware that anybody was reading this; so I haven't checked in a while. :-)
      You're right. I will update that post. Thank you.