200 Proofs that Eric Dubay is a liar and an idiot

"The second law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the law of entropy, along with the fundamental principles of friction/resistance determine the impossibility of Earth being a uniformly spinning ball. Over time, the spinning ball Earth would experience measurable amounts of drag constantly slowing the spin and lengthening the amount of hours per day. As not the slightest such change has ever been observed in all of recorded history it is absurd to assume the Earth has ever moved an inch." Dubay likes to quote bits of science that he does not understand.  He really shouldn't ... it just makes him look stupid. In order for friction to occur matter must come into contact with other matter.  Space is a vacuum.  That means that there is no matter there to come into contact with.  Therefore Earth cannot experience friction or drag as it spins in space and orbits the Sun. Perhaps we should be looking for the big brake calipers in the sky. Regarding the second ...

"It is impossible for rockets or any type of jet propulsion engines to work in the alleged non-atmosphere of vacuum space because without air/atmosphere to push against there is nothing to propel the vehicle forwards.  Instead the rockets and shuttles would be sent spinning around their own axis uncontrollably in all directions like a gyroscope. It would be impossible to fly to the Moon or go in any direction whatsoever, especially if “gravity” were real and constantly sucking you towards the closest densest body." Dubay does not understand how rockets work Jet engines do not work in space.  Wooo hooo Dubay gets something right.  However that is the only thing that he gets right.   Jet engines go on jets.  Jets don't go to space.  Hopefully that is simple enough for Dubay to understand. Now we've dealt with jet engines we can move onto rockets.  Rocket engines do not “push against” air/atmosphere.  They work by virtue of Newton's th...

"Quoting Reverend Thomas Milner’s “Atlas of Physical Geography,” we find that, “ Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals. South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles. The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot. The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.”" Duh! On a spherical Earth, "flat" obviously follows the curve of the Earth.  Yes there are lots of flat places.  The Earth is still a sphere. < Prev      151-160     Next >

"In 2003, three University Geography professors collaborated in an experiment to prove that the state of Kansas is indeed actually flatter than a pancake! Using topigraphical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake." This is a stupid argument By all means read all about it http://mentalfloss.com/article/58976/kansas-really-flatter-pancake Dubay it seems is trying to imply that these three professors were agreeing that the Earth is flat.  Of course they were not.  They were simply doing a tongue in cheek study for fun because people refer to Kansas as “Flat as a pancake”, their point being that if a pancake was scaled up to the size of Kansas it would be hillier than Kansas.  Nothing to do with the Earth being flat. ...

"If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000 mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn." Utter nonsense! Dubay is getting very confused here … again.  If you were standing at the North Pole the stars would be revolving around the celestial pole directly above your head.  If you then looked at the horizon, the starts at the horizon would indeed look like they were travelling horizontally. However Dubay claims the exact opposite.   He claims that if you were standing at a latitude of say 20 degrees North, where Polaris is low in the sky the stars at the ...

"The Sun’s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon’s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun’s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon’s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay.  When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay. This proves that Sun and Moon light are different, unique, and opposites as they are in the geocentric flat model."  Dubay really is an imbecile to repeat this magic nonsense The moon’s light is septic?  The sun’s rays decrease combustion? (The authorities will be happy to hear that in forest/...

"The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth.  If time-zones were instead caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours, day would be night and night would be day."  Utter gibberish I think Dubay is trying to say that if the Earth were to jump instantly to the other side of the Sun, I.e. where it would have been in 6 months time, that the parts of the Earth that were day would instantly become night and the parts of the Earth that were night would instantly become day. Ummm.  Yes.  And?  The Earth does not jump to the other side of the Sun instantly. Day follows night and night follows day as the earth turns on its axis. Can Eric Dubay really be this stupid? < Prev  ...

"The so-called “South Pole” is simply an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice marked with a red and white barbershop pole topped with a metal ball-Earth. This ceremonial South Pole is admittedly and provably NOT the actual South Pole, however, because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer.  Since this feat has never been achieved, the model remains pure theory, along with the establishment’s excuse that the geomagnetic poles supposedly constantly move around making verification of their claims impossible." Dubay is once again trying to throw doubt on the existence of the South Pole Dubay repeatedly does this because its existence debunks the flat Earth completely.  In this case he is rather ironically using things that scientists say about the South Pole to disprove the South Pole.  If scientists were making up the existence as part of a global conspiracy surely they would...

“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. C...

“A  surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 3...

“The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.” Dubay does not understand basic geometry, what elevation is or how it is measured Imagining a line drawn from London to Liverpool on a spherical earth, and then measuring the height of the hump at the mid point formed by the curvature of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with height above sea level.  Sea level follows the curve of the earth because the sea is maintaining an equal distance from the centre of the earth. Note also that the London and North Western railway ceased to exist in 1922.  It seems Eric Dubay likes to rely on sources ...

“One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.” Dubay does not understand elevation and laws of motion. I presume that the “inclination” part again refers to rivers flowing over the “hump” which has been dealt with the response to proof 4 .  The “motion” part probably refers to the spin of the Earth pushing the water uphill.  This also has been dealt with in the response to proof 3 . Eric Dubay is a liar As an aside he also claims that the Nile drops only 1 foot in 1000 miles is a blatant lie. See the Nile elevation chart below.  I only point this out to show that he does not hesitate to lie to make his points. Source:  https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/earth105new/content/...

“Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.” Dubay does not understand what elevation above sea level is I don’t know where Dubay got his 11 mile figure from since he does not explain it, but I presume that it is to do with the curve of the Earth creating a hump over which the water has to travel. Imagine a line from one location on Earth to another.  On a spherical Earth the mid point has a “hump” above the line caused by the curvature of the Earth’s surface.   Eric Dubay thinks that this hump is equivalent to elevation and that you would need to travel up hill as you moved over the hump. This is not how elevation works. Gravity exerts a force...