Sonntag, 21. Februar 2016

Debunking Dubay 120-129/200

#120 Empty claim
Etymology-wise there is no reason to refer to Latin, then to Greek and then back to Latin again. The origin is clearly Greek ("wandering star") and what the Romans made of that word is an entirely different story.
Words have different meanings over time and are often nothing more than symbolic attributions. When ordering a cordon bleu at a restaurant nobody expects to be served a "blue ribbon", which would be the literal translation.

If you asked 100 people who knew nothing about constellations to give a name to a certain agglomeration of stars, chances are that everybody will attribute something different to it and nobody will call it by its official name, say "Pisces", which to me doesn't look like a fish at all, but more like a drawback-yo-yo. And still, the actual constellation has nothing to do with fish or yo-yos, even the stars within this constellation are further away from each other than from other stars. It's purely symbolism and percipience.

Before Europeans "discovered" other oceans, the ancient Greek word "ocean" was synonymous with the waters beyond the Strait of Gibraltar which we now know as the Atlantic. The Greeks believed the Atlantic to be a gigantic river encircling the world as it was known to them at that time. Today we know that they were completely wrong about this. They also didn't have a word for America or Antarctica because they just didn't know about it.
And even if you took the Latin word "planeta", how do you know it was referring to the surface of the planet and not its movement (since the Greek called it "wandering")? All planets (including earth) move on an ecliptic plane. So there is just no point in using only this word as a proof for anything regarding the earth's or any other planet's shape or movement.

#121 Empty claim
The apparent size of an object is not its actual size. With a sextant alone, you can only measure the angular diameter of an object. It has NOTHING to do with its size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter

To be fair, if all you ever saw in your entire life were the apparent size of the sun and moon, both conjectures could be equally true.
However, there is more... and parallax, apparent positions from different points of observation, shapes, shadows (moon), planet transits (sun), eclipses, radar, speed of light, tides, seasons, nutation (moon), aurora borealis (sun), planets & their orbits, comets & asteroids (and much much more sun/moon-related issues) are all at odds with a flat earth.

#122 Empty claim
Most of the claims in this quote have already been falsified:
-The moving atmosphere (see #20,23&28)
-The sun's movement (see#53,55,56,58&59)

Concerning the spinning:
Centrifugal force is F=m*ω²*r. Because earth's ω is so tiny (2π/3600*24 rad/s roughly), the force is tiny, especially compared to F=m*g. Even if earth was hollow and there was no gravity to pull you back down, just a hair might be enough for you to hold on to earth.
Given that one hair can resist strain up to 100g (F = 0.1*9.81= 0.981 N), you can solve F = m*ω²*r for m, that gives you m = (0.1*9.81)/((2π/(24*3600))²*6371000) = 29 kg, keep in mind, that is at the equator. So one single hair could be enough to prevent an object with a mass of 29 kg from hurdling into space, even if there was no gravity at all. However, gravitational force for that object is exactly 291 times stronger.
And with m*g=m*ω²*r you can also calculate the rotational speed you would need to actually be hurdled into space. ω= √(g/r) = (√(9.81/6371000))*3600/(2π) = 0.71 rotations per hour, basically one rotation every 84 minutes. So if our days were 84 minutes long, we'd have reason to worry about the spinning globe..

Concerning the wobbling:
The oscillation of earth's axial tilt takes 26,000 years. 2000 years ago axial tilt was at 23.7°, now it's 23.44°, in 2000 years it will be 23.2°. With a change of roughly one tenth of one degree in one thousand years it's clear to see that it just takes much more than one lifetime to notice any change.

Now to the core of this claim:
"This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling.." Here's a short timeline:

When was NASA founded? 29 July 1958
When was Sputnik 1 launched? 4 October 1957.
When did the first rocket reach space? 3 October 1942.
When did Tombaugh discover Pluto? 18 February 1930.
When did Galle discover Neptune? 23 September 1846.
When did Herschel discover Uranus? 13 March 1781.
When did Galileo discover the moons around Jupiter? January 1610.
When did Kepler publish his calculations about the elliptical orbit of Mars? 1609
When did Copernicus publish his findings on the orbits of planets? 1543
When did Hipparchus measure the distance to the moon? Around 150 BC.
When did Eratosthenes measure the circumference of earth? Around 240 BC.

How many independent government space agencies with launch capability are there in the world? 13. (Including Russia, China, India, Iran and North Korea)

How many people around the world have worked in fields of astronomy, physics/chemistry, aviation, sailing, engineering or geodesy before the founding of NASA? Billions and billions of people.

How many people have since around the world worked (including amateurs/hobbyists) in fields of astronomy, physics/chemistry, aviation, sailing, engineering or geodesy without working for the government/NASA? Billions of people. And that doesn't even include military all over the world.

The theory is older than the Kingdom of Denmark and that alone dates back to the 8th century. I think it is safe to say that the globe earth is NOT A NASA THEORY. And it's NOT A GOVERNMENT THEORY. It never has been and it never will be. The same way it is not the "FedEx theory" or the "Ptolemy III Euergetes Theory".

#123
Again, here is a simple explanation how the sun's observable behaviour is impossible on a flat earth because people would have to be looking in different directions:

Regarding the Newton-quote: First, its not the right quote. Second, it might be of interest to fill this statement with a little bit of CONTEXT!

Here is the original quote from Newton's letter to Richard Bentley, some time around 1693:
"Your assuming the Orbis magnus 7000 diameters of the earth wide implies the Sun's horizontal Parallax to be half a minute. Flamsteed & Cassini have of late observed it to be but about 10″, & thus the Orbis magnus must be 21000 or in a rounder number 20000 diameters of the earth wide. Either assumption will do well & I think it not worth your while to alter your numbers."
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00258

1) The distance to the sun was not known at the time because the precision of measurements wasn't good enough. I think it's a safe guess that Newton knew this and since Cassini (who he is citing) not only rejected elliptical orbits, but also Newton's theory of gravity, he had good reason not to take Cassini's estimates for granted at all. Besides, scientific collaboration was not really common practice in these days.

2) It wasn't until 1771 (when observational data of Venus transits in 1761 and 1769 were combined) that astronomers had anything near a reliable estimate of the earth's distance to the sun. In 1716 it was proposed by Edmond Halley to measure the 1761/69 transits in order to get a good estimate. And that's exactly what was done. However, Newton died in 1727. So again, Newton had no idea what the distance was and he didn't have the means of finding it.

3) We have no idea what question he was referring to. Maybe Bentley asked "Shouldn't we recalibrate our sundials with these numbers?"
To which Newton could have answered "Nah, doesn't matter, works either way".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKycHJqd4po#t=07m33s

#124 Incomprehension of geometry
The radial appearance of sun rays is a very simple effect of perspective. Every long pair of parallel lines will appear to stretch out as you get closer to them. Railroad tracks are a good example. You won't be able to tell any distance just by making the two lines seemingly converge.
If you looked at the sun rays in the following picture from sea-level, they would appear to be converging at the clouds, but they are not:

Even this flatearther got it right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQktHTP0-U#t=04m22s

#125 False claim
Here is the picture from #127
What you see is a reflection of sunlight streaking across the vertical center towards the observer like a long bar. In the "hotspot"-video you see the exact same thing, only that most of this bar is being obstructed by clouds. Clouds scatter the vast majority of sunlight while water reflects focused sunlight at a much greater amount.

#126 False claim + incomprehension of the model
See #49 for a short and practical explanation of seasons. This claim, however, questions the impact of distance vs. axial tilt on solar radiation and the appearance of seasons. So let's look at both, but well..
Here's radiation as a function of distance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

And radiation as a function of angle of impact:

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

Let's look at the distance to the sun at both Perihelion and Aphelion (2016):
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/perihelion-aphelion-solstice.html

Perihelion (3 January): 147.100km, Aphelion (5 July): 152.100km.
Now we can calculate the maximum deviation in radiation (in percent) from the mean value (149.600):
So we have a deviation from the mean of about +/- 3.4% for Perihelion and Aphelion. Seems quite significant. Now let's look at the angle of (solar radiation) impact for Tokyo (35° N) at noon:

                 3 Jan        5 Jul      Mean (at equinox)
Tokyo        31.5°        77°        55°

With a given radiation area of 1m² (opposite leg of the triangle and depth both 1m) you get an illuminated area of A=1/sin(α) m². Now we can calculate the maximum deviation in radiation (in percent) from the mean value (55°):

There you have it. We see that between higher angles we have smaller deviation than between smaller angles (explained by sin-function). But more importantly, with a deviation due to axial tilt of 56.8% between equinox and perihelion, which is more than 16 times more than the deviation due to distance, you have a simple explanation why seasons on earth are caused by axial tilt and not by changing distances.

In addition to this, you also have a big change in hours of daylight between January and July; for Tokyo it's 9.8h during perihelion and 14.5h during aphelion. So you might even try to estimate the deviation of total radiation input (Warning! The angles change during the day, so this not a reliable estimate!):
For a complete picture you would have to integrate the respective curves of the sun's elevation angles over time (see chart below) for equinox, perihelion and aphelion and then punch the resulting mean angles into the sin-function. One would expect the deviation to shift in favor of summer because longer maximum exposure results in even higher radiation (notice the "summer-band" in the plot is larger than the "winter-band"), but this is where I check out. :-) It will also not change the fact that earth's axial tilt has a higher impact on radiation than its distance, so that's one for the geeks..
#127 Incomprehension of the model
If sunlight is reflected over water that is 500m away, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be reflected if the water is 10km away, other than a different angle of incidence that prevents this from happening.
The main reason for the light to be reflected in the form of a beam are the waves. When the angle of incidence gets low enough, a certain amplitude of waves from beyond both ends of the reflection can make the light appear to stretch. If the sun shines on a perfect level surface (without influence of refraction) it will be reflected as a spot. Add waves and you get something like this:


Refraction can only increase that effect. The different angle of incidence on a curved water surface over, say 10km, is 0.09°. That is negligible and it has nothing to do with the effect itself.

#128 Incomprehension of the model
Again, what does Mr. Dubay talk about when he says the earth is "wobbling and spiraling"?

1) Axial precession of earth takes 26,000 years. What does that mean? Look at the following animation, it displays the orientation of earth's axis year after year.
Axial precession concerns the direction to where the axis is pointing, NOT the angle of earth towards the sun. It has nothing to do with the value of the axial tilt; only its polar orientation, i.e. the orientation of earth against the fixed stars. That cycle, described in the following animation, takes 26,000 years.
That is why 13,000 years ago the axis pointed in the other direction, but, during one day, the sun behaved the same way as it does today, an equinox is still an equinox (although it occurs on a different spot on earth's orbit), noon is still noon and the sun's equinox angle at noon is still the exact same (when you only factor in axial precession).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Polar_shift_and_equinoxes_shift

2) Nutation describes a small change in axial tilt due to the changing positions of sun & moon. It oscillates over 19 years and has a maximum value of +/- 9 arcseconds (0.0025°). Negligible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation#Earth

3) Axial tilt (a.k.a. "obliquity") oscillates between 22° and 24.5° over the course of 41,000 years. That means earth has "wobbled" less than 1.5° since the last glacial period of the Ige Age. 2000 years ago axial tilt was 23.7°, now it's 23.44°. That is a difference of 0°15'36".
OVER 2000 YEARS!
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt#Oscillation

No wonder sundials still work because that difference is marginal.

#129 Illogical argument
A quote is not a proof. Anyway...
It seems I can't stress this enough: Most stars are very, very, very far away and compared to the earth's orbital motion, they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to move noticeably other than dictated by the earth's revolution. The always cited "wobbling" is marginal, as shown in #128.
For practical purposes (that means within short timeframes, say one year) the earth's revolution is pretty much constant and uniform and it has been known since the advent of astronomy. It is therefore an absolute necessity for astronomers to fix their telescopes to earth in a firm and stable way to enable them to compensate for this revolution with proper tracking. There is no magic trick about this. Only a complete ignorance of the geometric scales and timeframes can lead you to believe that this can't work.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen