41. Dubay adds a "proof" using the same incorrect calculation as proofs 39 and 40

“Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.”

Dubay repeats his incorrect trigonometry but this time doesn't bother to explain his calculations.

Average latitude of Australia?  Average latitude between Sydney and Wellington?  What does average latitude  have to do with anything?  You can’t calculate anything meaningful with average latitudes.  If you are working things out use the actual latitudes of Melbourne, Sydney and Wellington and then you might not get these nonsense results.

He claims that the earth’s greatest circumference at the equator is less than 25,000 miles.  That is correct, it is 24,902 miles.

He claims that the circumference at 35.5 degrees south is over 25,000 miles.  He hasn’t explained his calculations, other than that they are “similar” to proof 39 and proof 40.  We’ve seen why those calculations are wrong, so we can assume that these must be wrong too.  Indeed they are, the actual circumference at this latitude is 24,873 miles.

Possibly his calculations fail to take into account of the earth being an oblate sphere, but that should make his calculated circumference even less.

Similarly he states that the circumference of the earth at 37.5 degrees south should be 19,757 miles.  Again, I have no idea where he gets his figures from, and he doesn’t elaborate on what his 25,000 mile “practical measurements” are based.  The correct figure is 24,870 miles

See: https://rechneronline.de/earth-radius/
See: https://planetcalc.com/7721/


< Prev  41-50 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