Contents 81-90

81. The Dunkirk light at a height of 194 feet should not be visible from a ship 28 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.”
82. The Port Nicholson Light at a height of 420 feet should not be visible from a ship 35 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.”
83. The Egerö Light at a height of 154 feet should not be visible from a ship 28 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high water and visible from 28 miles statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.”
84. The Madras Light at a height of 132 feet should not be visible from a ship 28 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Light at Madras on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.”
85. The Cordouan Light at a height of 207 feet should not be visible from a ship 31 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.”
86. The Cape Bonavista Light at a height of 150 feet should not be visible from a ship 35 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.”
87. The lighthouse steeple of St Botolph's Parish Church at a height of 290 feet should not be visible from a ship 40 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The lighthouse steeple of St Botolph's Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon.”
88. The Isle of Wight lighthouse at a height of 180 feet should not be visible from a ship 42 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.”
89. The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse at a height of 238 feet should not be visible from a ship 50 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world were a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight.”
90. The Statue of Liberty at a height of 326 feet should not be visible from a ship 60 miles away on a spherical Earth
“The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.”
< Prev 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-200 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

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square  the circle ”" This is a historical opinion,
Read more