Mittwoch, 10. Februar 2016

Debunking Dubay 8-35/200

I just saw that a guy named "rubixwolfwright" has the first 18 covered already:
So let's jump to the next ones:

#19 False claim & incomprehension of scale and geometry. 

The stars ARE moving as earth makes half an orbit around the sun, but only very, very, very slightly. It can be measured using stellar parallax. The closest star, Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.77 arcseconds (tiny but measurable 0.01°). Also every star is moving on its own and that is observable, too. Look at Barnard's star. It is moving noticeably. Although scaled-down it is the equivalent of a mosquito in Amsterdam constantly flying in a circle with a 1m diameter looking at a snail 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.'s_Star

#20 Incomprehension of the model. 

Gases (just like air being a mixture of gases) and liquids can both be defined as fluids, which means that they are both effected by turbulence and, more importantly for these examples, friction and inertia. Air flows and it can be accelerated by friction. No magic about that.
You can start by rotating a bowl of soup and observing that due to friction the soup will rotate with the bowl. You can suspend an object within that soup and observe that this object will rotate within that fluid at the same speed (as long as it doesn't constantly propel itself through the fluid). The object itself will not experience any stream or "wind" once it has settled within the rotating fluid.
All the following "observations" (#20 to 31) only illustrate that principle on a bigger scale. Air (or the atmosphere), due to friction on the surface of the earth, must therefore rotate with the earth at the very same constant angular speed. And any object suspended within that fluid atmosphere must behave the same way as the little "ship" suspended in your soup.
Factoring out turbulence (i.e. "wind) this explains why raindrops and cannonballs (fired straight up) fall straight down, and why birds and airplanes propelling themselves constantly through the atmosphere do not have to compensate for a moving ground because ground and air are moving at the same angular speed.

#21 See #20

#22 See #20

#23 False claim, incomprehension of the model. 

Calling something magical often means that you didn't get the trick. "Ball-believers" might claim gravity to be inexplicable or magical. However, stacking up the numbers here should show to anyone that this is not a question of belief, but in fact quite the opposite. Gravity (well-examined and explained) and turbulence (well-examined and explained), combined with the above (#20) principles (geometry, mechanics & properties of fluids) give perfect explanations as to what is happening to rain, birds, clouds, bugs etc. Their behaviour is observable, measurable, explainable and predictable.
The height of the atmosphere is in no way "undetermined".
Everything behaves the same way as you would expect according to these principles. This whole model may be called "acceptable" until disproven with hard evidence, but to disprove it you have to at least understand the model that you are arguing against. This is clearly not the case here.

#24 False claim. 

Ask any professional sniper or artilleryman. And by professional I mean those who actually hit their targets. Over long distance-shots bullets partly overcome the influence of air-movement and centrifugal acceleration and in fact miss their targets, if they don't factor in the rotation of the earth. If shooting due East or West they will shoot too long or too short. If they shoot in any other direction, they will also miss to the left or right, depending on their position on earth (both explained by Eötvös effect and Coriolis Effect).

#25 See #20

#26 See #20

#27 See #20

#28 False claim. 
Clouds, wind and weather patterns do not "casually and unpredictably go every which way". If they did, we wouldn't be able to do any kind of weather forecasting. Of course, over long periods of time every complex model prediction becomes chaotic, but the general weather patterns on earth are very much predictable and easily explainable. The atmosphere has different layers just like your nearby lake has different layers. It is quite easy to explain how these different layers can be set into motion in opposing directions. The following video explains it much quicker and more comprehensible than I could:

#29 See #20

#30 see #28

#31 See #20

#32 Incomprehension of the model. 
According to the theory of gravity and Newton's laws of motion, every object on earth experiences an acceleration of g=9.81 m/s² towards the center of earth due to the gravitational force acting upon that object, with the force equaling F=m*g [kg*m/s²=N]. Any other force of equal value that acts upon this object and points into the opposite direction compensates this gravitational pull. Basic aerodynamics show that a wing set into motion against a fluid induces local differences in pressure resulting in a lifting force that does exactly that. There is no magic in that. And there is no contradiction.

#33 Incomprehension of the model.
a)Every fish is adapted to a certain pressure regime the same way we are.
b)Again, equal forces. A fish doesn't have a problem with gravity. When floating in water, the buoyancy of an object (resulting from pressure differences at the top and the bottom of an object) equals the gravitational force of the fluid displaced by the object with the g-force pointing into the other direction:

ρ*g*h1*A - ρ*g*h2*A = ρ*g*V
Looking at this formula, you can see that for an immersed floating object you can factor out g! That means, acceleration through gravity is a non-factor in this case. Fun fact: It also gives you Archimedes principle (Heureka!):'_principle
That tells us: A fish doesn't have to adapt to a different gravitational force (the difference of "g" between a low-sea and a deep-sea environment is negligible), but to different PRESSURE. And, with forces being equal (zeroing each other out), the fish has absolutely no problem to propel itself and swim in any direction.

#34 Pants-on-fire-false claim. 

There are 2D map projections of earth that preserve angles, like the Mercator projection. This one was a great invention for sailors as the angles they measured on earth were indeed consistent with the angles on the map. However, this projection is neither equal-area nor equidistant. Anybody dealing with maps should at some point come across the fact, that there is not ONE single 2D-model of earth that can do all three things at the same time (preserving angles, equidistant and equal-area). The standard flatearth map for instance is an azimuthal projection which is equidistant, but ONLY for distances measured through the center of the map. All other distances plus angles and surface areas are being distorted.
Again, this is perfectly understood:
That is why every flat map is a compromise, getting one thing right, but many things wrong because you just can't display a 3D-sphere on a 2D-map without any distortion.

That is also why a conformal projection (preserving angles) like Mercator's ONLY works for terrestrial navigation. If you used a flat earth model for celestial navigation (with a sextant for instance), you would be completely lost because it just doesn't work (we'll have more on that later). All of the impressive feats in sailing history that relied on celestial navigation, like Shackleton's lifeboat journey to South Georgia, just wouldn't have worked if they had navigated on a flat earth model.

#35 False claim. 
To disprove this claim, you don't even have to get on a boat, a single flight from any place in the southern hemisphere to another will do. Santiago to Sydney is one of the most cited examples; one reason being that on the azimuthal flat earth map this flight would be impossible. It would inevitably crash because it just couldn't cover that distance (See#34). Get yourself the flatearth map, measure the distances Santiago-Sydney and London-New York. Compare the flight times for both of these routes and you have your answer. I think we will get back to this very flight soon because it can also debunk several Antarctica-myths floating around. Anyway, not one single flight path or time I have seen is contradictory to a spherical earth.
And again, keeping the map-problem in mind (#34), if you want to debunk the globe, you have to measure your distances ON A GLOBE (and not a map)! Anything else gives you a geometrically false/unreal value to begin with.
By the way, who are the "many captains"? I don't know, but, as of today, there are still skippers around who circumnavigate the world without GPS, only using basic celestial navigation. These would be your guys to factcheck this claim.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen