Sonntag, 28. Februar 2016

Debunking Dubay 140-149/200

#140 Illogical argument
"..the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other.."
If the joint did not facilitate circular motion, there would be no point in using it for this experiment. In order to prove that a pendulum goes into circular motion, it's a logical necessity to attach it to a joint that enables it to do it. The joint is not the cause for the pendulums tendency to circular motion: If you used a joint that only facilitated straight motion, you would only eliminate the motion, but not the tendency and you could even measure that tendency through a force that is acting contrary to the straight line. For all other claims made here, please proceed to #141.

#141 Incomprehension of scale + false claim
It is true that water in sinks and toilets in the northern and southern hemispheres does not consistently spin in any one direction. However, that is just a question of scale. The Coriolis effect is just too weak in order to measure it on a small scale with so many possible sources of error (shape of bowl & outlet, microturbulence etc.). On a bigger scale, the Coriolis Effect is proven to exist. Some of the best examples are the respective prevailing wind patterns in the northern and southern hemispheres...
...professional snipers
...or Foucaults Pendulum.

Also, Foucault's Pendulum does not "spin either which way". It rotates clockwise in the Northern hemisphere, counterclockwise in the Southern hemisphere and at the equator it doesn't spin at all.

"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."
The WHOLE POINT of the pendulum is to set it into motion against the "alleged constant rotation" of earth. If you kept your pendulum fixed in still position, you would eliminate any offset in angular velocity, the dot in the following picture would not move relative to the spinning circle:
#142 False claim
Again, the "blurry haze" is called refraction and it has nothing to do with magnification. Secondly, utilizing radio/radar we can thoroughly debunk the claim that we can't see the earth beyond the horizon because of atmospheric obstruction. And again, the following video sums up the logical inconsistencies of the so-called "law of perspective" and explains how radar/radio disprove the weather/atmosphere-claim:
(Start at 06:33. Warning: Harsh language!)

#143 False claim + Incomprehension of geometry
"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."
If earth had no atmosphere, yes. With an atmosphere, clearly no, because the sun would still illuminate the parts of the atmosphere that are not yet obscured by the shape of the earth, with brightness gradually fading off in its opposite direction. And that is exactly what you can observe during every sunset.
I have also plotted the distribution of sunlight on earth to prove that the "spotlight"-claim is geometrically impossible (see map problem #34,35,43 etc.).

Here is the distribution of sunlight during June solstice (06/20/2016, 12:00 UTC):

Here it is during equinox (03/20/2016 & 09/22/2016, 12:00 UTC)

And here it is during December solstice (12/21/2016, 12:00 UTC)

(AE projections on the left side were produced here:

You can easily verifiy that the plot is correct by checking webcams or skyping with people in various locations or simply by looking up the different times for sunrise and sunset on this website:
Example: According to the spotlight-claim, Auckland and Cape Town should NEVER receive sunlight at the same time. However, over 9 months from August over December to April they do every day:

#144 Incomprehension of geometry
Following an orbit around earth, it is a geometrical fact that the moon has to turn during one night, relative to the horizon. When you observe it from earth and take its orbital plane as axis, however, it doesn't turn more than 1° during one night. It must have apparent "rotation" relative to the horizon, but that's because the orbit spans an arc across the sky. At the equator it rises top-up in the West...

 ... and sets bottom-up in the East (roughly)
That doesn't mean that it's rotating. It only means that your side of reference has turned 180°. It's apparent "turning" that you can observe over longer periods of time is called libration, which is a consequence of the moon's elliptical orbit, its 5° offset to the ecliptic, 1.5° axial tilt and your observing position (with 23.4° axial tilt). It oscillates over the course of one month and the moon will expose roughly 60% of its surface during one cycle. Never more than that.
(Yes, I know, this is a NASA-animation. For a time-lapse that anyone can do in his/her backyard, see #131)

This phenomenon is in no way contradictory to the globe earth model; it is in fact a logical geometrical consequence of the earth's & moon's orbits.

#145 Incomprehension of scale/geometry
"If the Moon were a sphere, observers in Antarctica would see a different face from those at the equator."
Let's calculate how "different" the face would be:
α = arcsin(6371/400000) = 0.9°
Not very different I must say.

#146 Incomprehension of the model.
Mr. Dubay kindly debunks his own claim himself by saying
"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"
Exactly. Well not exactly, actually, because it can be up to 5.15° away from the ecliptic (sun's path), but good enough..
So why is it that the moon makes a full circle in 25 and not 24 hours? Why is it around one 29th off from a full (synodic) rotation after each day? And how many days would it logically need to get back to its starting position? Guess what, it's 29 days and you just discovered the moon's orbit!

#147 Incomprehension of methods
Again, apparent size (angular diameter) does not tell real size. You cannot measure an object's real size only by measuring its angular diameter with a sextant. The object can be three times as large and three times further away as you perceive it to be or a million times bigger and a million times further away. You just can't tell.

#148 Incomprehension of geometry
See #112.

#149 False claim + incomprehension of scale and geometry
Firstly, there are around 5000 stars in the night sky that are visible to the naked eye. Every single one of these is a Milky Way star! (Out of the roughly 100-300 billion stars that it contains) There is just a handful of galaxies (like Andromeda, also known as M31) that you can barely see with your own eyes, but they don't appear like stars, more like a small "haze". That is why the speed of the Milky Way is absolutely irrelevant. Secondly, the large majority of visible stars is even in the same spiral arm as we are, rendering the rotational speed of the Milky Way maybe not irrelevant, but it is clearly not very important when looking at the stars in our immediate neighborhood. Look here:
"Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever"
Just false. Barnard's Star for instance can be observed moving even over the course of one year (slightly, a few more years certainly help to notice the change):'s_Star

And again, scaled-down this is the equivalent of a mosquito (Earth) in Amsterdam constantly flying in a circle with a 1m diameter looking at a snail (Barnard's Star) in Brussels. Being the closest star visible in the northern hemisphere this also explains why the other stars being very,very,very much further away take very,very,very much longer to move noticeably and that the orbit of earth around the sun is nothing but an itsy bitsy mosquito fart compared to those mind-boggling distances.

Although the following video doesn't get the polar orientation of earth right, it does give a good impression of the changing constellations:


  1. I'm using part of your blog on another written in Spanish. Maybe you want to see in

  2. Hey,
    sure do! But no guarantee for scientific accuracy; most of this was self-taught. ;-) I see you made it to 200, congratulations on following through! I gave up since I concluded that I was not reaching a flatearther with arguments anyway; and had better things to do with my life.
    I might get back to this hahaa.. ;-)