55. A flat Earth explains the difference in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures

“If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!”


Yes, sort of,  but …

Yes a flat Earth could be used to explain the temperature in the southern hemisphere being colder than the northern as long as you keep things vague.  The claim that it “perfectly” explains the differences would need to be backed up with some actual calculations, something that flat Earthers hardly ever do, and Dubay never does.

However since a spherical Earth also perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons etc, this hardly constitutes a proof that the Earth is flat.

Also, Dubay's claim that Antarctic dawn and twilight are more abrupt than in the north are completely unsubstantiated.  This is just a case of Dubay reverse engineering the "evidence" to fit the flat earth theory.  If you know of any accounts of this supposed phenomenon please share it ... that includes you Mr Dubay.


< Prev  51-60 Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse,
Read more

18. The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments failed to detect any significant change in the speed of light caused by the motion of the earth, which proves that the earth is stationary

Image
"The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space.  After measuring in every different possible direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever , again proving the stationary geocentric model.” Dubay quotes science out of context to support a false conclusion Again Dubay and the Flat Earthers mis-interpret the results of scientific experiment ignoring the conclusions of the scientists who actually devised and conducted the experiment. This experiment was nothing to do with proving whether the Earth was stationary or in motion.  The scientists in keeping with the scientific consensus accepted that the Earth was in motion.  The prevailing belief was that because light was a wave, it must be propagated through a medium in a similar way to waves being propagated through water.  This medium was named Luminiferous Aether. However there were two theories
Read more