42.The distances travelled in Antarctic expeditions are incompatible with a spherical Earth

“In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.”

Dubay obviously imagines that the explorers travelled in a perfect circles.  Ah Bless.

Firstly, the circumference of the earth at 78 degrees south is actually 24,800 miles, but since the coastline of Antarctica obviously doesn’t follow a perfect circle, the latitude and the circumference at that latitude are an irrelevance.

I have no idea where he gets his 12,000 mile maximum circumference figure from, but let’s go with that for the sake of argument.

Captain Cook, was not attempting to circumnavigate Antarctica, he was circumnavigating the globe looking for a southern continent.  That he did circumnavigate Antarctica is incidental, and you can see from his route that he would have obviously travelled more than an Antarctica hugging circumnavigation would have.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_voyage_of_James_Cook#Voyage

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_voyage_of_James_Cook#Voyage

James Clark Ross’s route was not a complete circumnavigation of Antarctica, and was similarly meandering.

See: https://antarctic-logistics.com/2010/08/28/sir-james-clark-ross/
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Ross-fr.svg

Source: https://antarctic-logistics.com/2010/08/28/sir-james-clark-ross/

You should also note that both Captain Cook and James Clark Ross were navigating according to a spherical Earth.  The distances that they would have experienced on a flat Earth would have been many times greater than the distances that they recorded.  It is inconceivable that they would have somehow failed to notice that something was wrong with their spherical Earth navigation.  Or maybe Dubay thinks that they too are part of the global conspiracy.


The HMS Challenger may have circumnavigated the globe, but it is a blatant misrepresentation to say that it circumnavigated Antarctica.  In fact it was never in sight of it.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition


Eric Dubay is just making things up yet again.  He may be deliberately misrepresenting things, or he may just be incapable of understanding what he reads, but either way you can't trust and facts that he quotes.


< 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