Dienstag, 16. Februar 2016

Debunking Dubay 80-99/200

#80 Empty claim.
The first one relies solely on an eye-witness report of a guy who claims to have seen a certain ship from a long distance. Well... that has never turned out to be wrong in the history of human kind. Eye-witness testimony without any further evidence is scientifically worthless.
The second is almost the same thing, only that the person allegedly stated correct position, appearance and movement of the ship.
Well.. can a bare human eye resolve a ship's appearance from 200 miles away? And can you prove that the guy had absolutely no chance of knowing where the ship was from other sources? Can you prove that he wasn't just one out of thousand people who were guessing and he happened to be the one who got it kind of right? Have you heard of any guy in Yemen being able to repeat this incredible feat from that distance?
The answers are: No, no, no and... no.

#81 Phony numbers + refraction
Has that really happened? I don't know; Mr. Dubay only presents claims, but no evidence.
(Sources and details for calculations: See #69&70)
Dunkerque light house is actually 66.35m above sea-level (217.7 feet).
Geometrically it can be seen from at least 29.1km away, a boat 10 feet above water can look at least 6.2km far.
A refraction coefficient of 0.33 at a distance of 45km (28 miles) will give you 6.2+39= 45.2 km of added intersecting sight lines. That means after a sunny day over open water you are able to see the lighthouse from that boat. For more on refraction coefficients and why a value of 0.33 for these conditions over open waters is entirely possible, look here:

#82 Empty claim.
What is the "Port Nicholson Light"? As to my knowledge, that doesn't exist. If Mr. Dubay means the Pencarrow Head Lighthouse (since Port Nicholson refers to Wellington), that was decommissioned in 1935.

It was replaced by Baring Head Lighthouse, but this one neither has the focal height nor the range that he is "citing".

Where does he get his information? What are his sources for these names and numbers that he claims to "disprove"? Apart from not providing his sources, in his calculations he never factors in any of the following:
-Correct height of the observer
-Correct focal heights of the lighthouses (height of the building+ ground level)
-Atmospheric refraction.
On top of that, he doesn't have any kind of photographic evidence for his claim to begin with.

From now on, I will refer every following claim to this one, when it contains neither of the above mentioned basic requirements for an investigation.
When your claim has the same quality as, say "In 1832 word spread that Sir Alfred Rowbottle of Lancashire had seen pink unicorns dancing in his backyard", it should be obvious to anyone that this is the worst kind of claim that you can make, when your evidence is nothing but eye-witness testimony. And when you even fail to provide that worthless piece of evidence, you just have no claim to begin with, no proof or disproof of anything in any way, shape or form.

#83 see #82

#84 see #82

#85 see #82

#86 see #82

#87 see #82

#88 see #82

#89 see #82

#90 Empty claim.
Again and again and again: It is true that (with a refraction coefficient of, say, 0.2) the statue of liberty shouldn't be visible from 60 miles away, unless you tried to observe it from at least 225m above sea-level.
But who says that the statue of liberty is visible from 60 miles away at sea-level and where is the evidence for that? Where? A claim is nothing without evidence.

#91 see #82

#92 What's that even supposed to mean?
"The Notre Dame Antwerp spire stands 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level."
Strasbourg is a city in France, 235 miles away from Antwerp. What does that have to do with anything?

"..and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away"
Which cathedral do the captains allegedly see? The one in Strasbourg or Antwerp? And can you name one captain that "declares" to see whatever you say they are seeing, and how exactly did they measure these incedible 150 miles? Strasbourg is 300 miles away from any kind of shoreline!
150 miles from Antwerp, that is almost twice the distance to Amsterdam. And you can't even see Amsterdam from Antwerp!
Again, see #82 as to why this claim is worthless, apart from the fact that the places and distances are absolute nonsense to begin with.

#93 Wrong lighthouses.
What you can see from this position to the east, is not the Holyhead pier light, but the South Stack Lighthouse in Wales, which is closer, much higher (range 44km) and in the same direction when you are in the middle of the channel. Same in the other direction: Baily lighthouse (close to Dublin) will be in the exact opposite direction from Stack lighthouse and also stands much higher (range 48km) than the Kingstown light.  Distance between these two is 90km. So, within a certain range of 2km you don't even need to raise your head above sea-level to be able to see both of them at the same time. Needless to say that on a ship you are always a few meters above sea-level, so you will be able to see both of these lighthouses for quite some time. We didn't even need to factor in refraction for this one.


#94 Incomprehension of geometry.
Again, see #60. Geometrically, there is no reason for the horizon to be noticeably curved from these low altitudes.  A circle as viewed from the center (only with a tiny, tiny offset for your altitude) forms a LINE.

#95 see #94

#96 Botched experiment / incomprehension of geometry
The given numbers are only proof for a faulty experiment and don't even work on a flat earth. The only cited timeframe is the 1 hour between the light coming into view and the boat reaching it.

When Mr. Carpenter says that "in the whole journey the light won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation" that is just bullocks and again, is absolute geometrical nonsense even on a flat earth because also on a flat earth you have to look up more to a higher object as you get closer to it.

By the way, do you know the angular offset between a curved and a flat earth for an object that is 50m high and seen from sea-level at a distance of 25km (~16miles)? I did get into the hassle of measuring that with GeoGebra: It's 0.115°. And this value even gets smaller and smaller the closer you get to your target. That is just impossible to see with your bare eyes on a moving boat. Even if you brought a theodolite with you, you'd have quite a hard time measuring that.

#97 Incomprehension of the model + false claim
1) When you have different speeds in different directions, you don't get a total speed by just adding them up.
2) "..yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever". Wrong in many ways.
"Seen": We see these motions every day and night.
"Felt": You can't feel constant uniform motion. You don't feel the speed of a train when it goes at constant speed.
"Heard": You can't hear speed in constant uniform motion. You can’t hear it in a vacuum. There is nothing to hear.
"Measured": We have measured them, I can measure them, you can measure them. That's how we got these values in the first place. Eratosthenes was one of the first ones to do it, everybody can repeat his experiment and measure what he has measured.

#98 Incomprehension of methods + false claim
Concerning the often cited "wobbling and spiraling": See#128.

Now why is it that astronomers sometimes do not have exact values for our distances to the stars? Well maybe because it's friggin HARD to do these measurements precisely. Measuring stellar parallax at 430 light years distance, you have to detect a shift due to an orbital movement of 1.5*10 km at a distance of 430*9.46*10¹²km. That gives you an angle of α=arctan(1.5*10/(9.46*430))*3600 = 7.6*10⁻³ arcseconds.
After a full orbit of earth you get twice that value, which is (=α*2/3600):


That’s the star’s apparent movement that you observe and measure, that’s what we’re talking about here. Try to measure that! Even if your measuring device has a margin of error of just 0.0000001°, it can give you a wrong result by more than 10 light years in this example. It’s just hard to do this. When you combine different methods of measurement you will be able to get values that are more and more refined and exact. And that’s exactly what astronomers are doing.

Even if you looked at the closest stars in our immediate neighborhood (like Proxima Centauri), which are said to be more than 4 light years away (4*10¹³ km roughly), the parallax measurement is the equivalent of looking at an object that is 4 km away while shifting your observing position back and forth by
 4*3*10⁸ km / 4*10¹³ km = 0.00003 km = 3 cm   (for a full orbit of earth with around 3*10⁸ km.)

You just can't perceive this with your bare eyes, but with a precise and delicate measurement using a good telescope you definitely can.

Here's an example of what parallaxes would look like over the course of one year if the earth's orbit was much larger than it is (around 1.5 light-years in diameter, i.e. 50,000 times larger):


That means in reality this motion is fifty thousand times weaker (and of course slower). That's why you cannot possibly see stellar parallax with your naked eyes. That's why it is very hard to do and was absolutely impossible until the advent of telescopes. But today we have them in abundance and for the nearest stars it is now possible to make these kinds of measurements even with regular backyard-telescopes.
Parallax angle for Proxima Centauri is 0.768 arcseconds.

How much of a fortune costs a telescope that can resolve 0.77''? A brand new 6-inch Dobsonian telescope sells for 300 bucks and less, see here:
So please keep in mind, there is a difference between "hard" and "impossible". ;-)

"Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions ".
No it doesn't. Every single night it can be observed describing a small circle around the celestial pole with a radius of 0.7°. If you don't bother looking up, it can already be clearly and unmistakenly seen in a high-resolved and long-exposure photograph:

Do you see the small and bright arc close to the center of rotation? That is Polaris.
Concerning the "tilting and wobbling" see #128.

#99 False claim.
Anybody hoping to see Polaris from Lima (12°S), Jakarta (6°S) or Kinshasa (4°S) is in for a disappointment. Because you can't. This claim is nothing but false.

1 Kommentar:

  1. Re #82 "What are his sources for these names and numbers" I think I can answer that :)

    Dubay got these lighthouse observations from "Earth not a Globe" by Rowbotham (aka "Parallax").

    Rowbotham in turn got them from "Lighthouses of the World" by Alexander Findlay (pub 1861).

    See http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_01.html

    I found a scanned copy of "Lighthouses of the World" online here: https://archive.org/stream/cihm_47776#page/n81/mode/2up

    As an example, turn to the page numbered 71 (page 83 in the PDF) and the "Dunkurque" example is the top entry on that page. Zoom in and you can see the book claims it is visible at 24 miles and is 194 (feet?) above the "H.W." (presumably the "height of the water").

    The book says "24" miles not "28" but I think it's the origin of the claim.

    Given the figures in the book the lighthouse would be visible from a height of 32.15ft at 24 miles without refraction, but I don't think that is the whole story.

    Since the book does not itself appear to quote *its* sources this is still not the *original* source for these claims. But I would hazard a guess that anyone testing the range of a lighthouse would do so at night since that's the time it is needed to save lives. In which case the light of a lighthouse will be visible way beyond the horizon since it will illuminate the air above the line of sight of the observer.