39. An Almanac published in the 1870's stated a distance between Sydney and Nelson that disagrees with current maps

“Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanac, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.”

Incorrect historical information and Dubay does not know how to do trigonometry.

Once again Eric Dubay resorts to historical sources, in this case The Australian Handbook, Almanac, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” which was published between 1872-1879.

The distance it is reported as quoting between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 miles which is incorrect. The Almanac might not have been quoting the mileage as the crow flies, or maybe they just got the distance wrong but the accurate distance is 1309 miles.

In addition Dubay has forgotten to take into account that Sydney and Nelson are not both sitting on the equator, which is the only place where his crude 22 degrees 2’14” calculation would work.  Latitude matters.

Sydney co-ordinates are Latitude -33.87° (-33° 52' 7"), longitude 151.21° (151° 12' 33")
Nelson co-ordinates are Latitude -41.27° (-41° 16' 14"), longitude 173.28° (173° 17' 2")

So Dubay has an incorrect distance and an incorrect number of degrees between the two locations.  It is not surprisingly he gets a figure that does not match the known diameter of the globe.

The correct formula to work out the angle between two points A and B on a sphere is:
acos(
          sin( latitudeA ) * sin( latitudeB ) +
          cos( latitudeA ) * cos( latitudeB ) * cos( longitudeB - longitudeA )
)
Note if you want to try this in a spreadsheet you need to convert the longitude and latitude to radians for the formula to work.  The answer is given in radians.
Using the correct calculation the angle between Sydney and Nelson is 18.9 degrees  If we take the correct mileage between Sydney and Nelson, 1309 miles, our calculated circumference of the Earth is (1309 * 360 ) / 18.9 = 24,901 miles.  Surprise surprise this agrees EXACTLY with what scientists say the circumference of our spherical Earth is.

Back to school for you Mr Dubay.


< Prev  31-40 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