Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016

Debunking Dubay 130-139/200

#130 False claim. Pants-on-fire-false
"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"

Good luck with that. Because it's absolutely impossible. The only stars that will roughly be in the same position at the same time of night after six months are Polaris and Sigma Octantis. Any other star will be in a completlely different direction.
Anybody who ever bothers to look up and tries to repeat this experiment can verify this.

#131 False claim
Not only are the moon's phases always perfectly consistent with the current position of the sun, its spherical shape is easily evidenced by radar, the shadow print of craters at the moon's edge (please grab a pair of binoculars and see for yourself)...


...or by simply taking photos of the moon over the course of a month and stacking them into a time-lapse (the phenomenon is called libration).

Just like the moon reflects sunlight on earth, so does earth reflect sunlight on the moon. That explains how even the the areas that do not receive direct sunlight can be visible.

#132 Empty claim
"The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire"? Really? Is there any evidence to support this preposterous hypothesis better than "you can't see the flames as well when it isn't dark"? I don't think so. Because is nonsense and nobody experiences this.

"This proves that Sun and Moon light are different". Yes, the sun and moon light are "different": The moon is not as bright as the sun. Which means that there is less radiation. Which means that everything effected by radiation will be less effected when it's dark.

A simple long-exposure photo can show that the visible light coming from the moon has the exact same properties as the sun's light; the only difference is that it's much fainter and therefore you need a very long exposure in order to get the same result.

Believe it or not, this photo was taken under moonlight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight

A much smaller moon (as in: much smaller than the sun) receiveiving a much smaller amount of light as the sun sends out and reflecting only around 11-12% of that incoming sunlight...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Astronomical_albedo
.. is a very simple and straightforward explanation as to why it does not warm up the atmosphere noticeably. In the following link you can find a very rough estimate for a full moon's ability to heat up the atmosphere:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89181/how-is-the-earth-heated-by-a-full-moon
Saying, yes, a full moon can heat up the atmosphere, but only by 0.001°C over a whole night.

#133 Incomprehension of the model
"In full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade "
That can happen, but it has evidentially nothing to do with the moon. Make two equal measurements after two equally warm days, one at full moon and one at new moon. You will get the exact same result. Different temperatures at nighttime are a microclimatic phenomenon, due to different heat capacity and albedo of the previously warmed up objects...

...the different re-radiation of their stored heat energy (radiative cooling), thermal radiation, exposure, cold and warm layers of air, wind etc .etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microclimate
If it is any factor in this process, the moon is definitely and by far among the smallest.

"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."

.. and no experiment thereafter could repeat this incredible feat. 160 years have passed since then and nobody has been able to repeat this. Because it's impossible. Even if that really is what it said in the Lancet. I could not find the original article on their website that contains this claim. It seems to have been made up by Mr. Rowbotham, since this quote originates from his book "Earth not a Globe".

#134 False claim. Pants-on-fire-false.

Wow. I have seen some hilarious claims so far, but this one certainly takes the cake.
Every ball that you can see with your own eyes is reflecting light. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it. Regardless if it is a baseball, a snow ball or a disco ball (or a giant moon ball). It's amazing that there are actually videos of people verifying this:


On the other hand, so am I here, writing this blog.. anyway, moving on.
Oh, wait, I just saw that Mr. Goudsmits (the one who made the above video) already debunked the first 111 claims of Mr. Dubay. I could have saved a lot of time if I had seen that before...

#135 False claim
Again, the moon is clearly never self-luminescent. It's phases are ALWAYS perfectly consistent with the current position of the sun.
(Picture not to scale!)

By the way, here is the distance between earth and moon to scale :

And again, just as the moon reflects light on earth, so does the earth reflect light on the moon, which explains why even the shadowed regions of the moon receive a tiny bit of light, which makes them visible at times.
When Mr. Dubay is telling us that "it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon", I am almost lost for words... Where is the atmosphere? Between the moon and the earth or behind the moon? Even on a flat earth it is between the earth and the moon.

"It is even possible to occasionally see stars and “planets” directly through the surface of the Moon!"

Again, good luck with that. Never has this happened. Of course it is possible for moving objects like airplanes, satellites, comets & asteroids to pass between the earth and the moon while being illuminated by the sun, but these are MOVING OBJECTS and can be clearly identified as such. Sure, looking at a photo you might not be able to make that distinction. But anybody with functioning eyes should be able to look up every night and clearly see that you cannot observe one single fixed star through the moon. This has never happened and it never will.

#136 False claim + incomprehension of the model
"The heliocentric theory of the universe". The model of the universe is not heliocentric. Solar system? Yes. Universe? No.

"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."

Almost right. Ptolemy was able to predict lunar eclipses with certain accuracy because it is fairly easy to do and they occur roughly twice a year for every place of observation on earth, but certainly not for six hundred years. What Mr. Dubay fails to mention is that Ptolemy was nowhere near predicting solar eclipses, especially not with the accuracy we have today and, more importantly, had no valid explanation for his funky concept of planetary epicycles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U&list=PLmWeueTF8l82THrHwihtcmhQdjcBQBXjT#t=09m46s


http://www.academia.edu/2360700/A_Re-Analysis_of_the_Eclipse_Observations_in_Ptolemy_s_Almagest

#137 Incomprehension of the model
A lunar eclipse implies that the sun and moon have to be 180° apart from each other as seen from any point of observation on earth.
(picture not to scale!!)

Atmospheric (astronomical) refraction increases the closer you get to the horizon, where the deviation of light is slightly greater than the apparent diameter of the sun (0.53°).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Astronomical_refraction
Thus, for a short period of time it is absolutely possible to see both the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse. No lunar eclipse in the history of mankind has been observed at noon and that is because this is absolutely impossible.

#138 Illogical argument.
"Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest. "
If the point of observation is lower than the highest point of that object, following this nonexistent "law of perspective", the higher object would have to vanish first. Apart from the fact that this "law of perspective" including the "vanishing point" is demonstrably not real, this claim is utter geometrical nonsense.

At no point should any departing object appear to sink down, it would have to appear to go up because the angle between the object and the observers eyelevel gets smaller and smaller. The following video sums up the horizon problem and the logical inconsistencies on a flat earth quite well:
(warning, harsh language!)

#139 see #138
The video given in #138 also debunks the "zoom"-claim.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen