Friday 5 February 2016

55) “If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!”

Updated 28 May 2021

First of all, in this claim, Dubay actually points out a huge piece of factual, testable of evidence against his flat disk world. He actually points out a huge problem; if the world were a disk, the sun would have to move much faster when it is in the southern latitudes in order to rotate every 24 hours. And if doesn't, of course! If it did, I think at least one person in Australia, say, or in South America, would have pointed it out?  

Thanks, Eric, this one point is enough to rule out theflat earth.

Second, Dubay imagines that this faster movement might explain the differences in the Arctic and Antarctic that he mentions in the last few claims. But of course that doesn't help him at all. He says that the sun delivers less heat becuase it moves more rapidly over the southern  part of the world. If so, why is Autralia as hot as many  equivalent lattitudes in the north? 

Thanks to Greater Sapien (Gerry Williams) for pointing out just how silly this claim is, and just how much damage it does to  the credibility of all the imaginary flat earth maps.

Of course, those maps fail in so many ways;

This claim is a rare example where Mr Dubay explains just a little about his view of how things really work. No numbers of course; quantities are vital, and the devil is often in the numerical detail. For example, how far away is the sun in Dubay’s view. In point 123 he claims that “Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth. “found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.”

So its worth looking in a little detail at Mr Dubay’s diagrams in point  54 and 55.

One obvious question is how this model can explain sunrise and sunset. If the sun never dips below the alleged disk of the earth, the sun should be visible somewhere in the sky at every point on earth, all the time. The same question applies to moonrise and moonset.
The line between the lowest edge of the sun’s disk and your eye can never be as low as the plane  of the earth’s alleged disk, in Dubay’s diagram. So we could never see this in Dubay’s flat earth: 

Why not, because there will always be a straight line of sight from wherever you are to the bottom of the sun's disk. Of course, there could be hills in the way, but over oceans of a flat plains, you could always see the sun. Even if a mountain was in the way, it should not be completely dark, because the sun light;s up clouds and vapour in the atmosphere, as we see on every day that isn't completely overcast.

I’ve seen the claim that the sun is not a globe, either, but shaped like a spotlight: There are several problems with that
A)     It still doesn’t solve the problem. You can see a spotlight and it’s cone of light through the atmosphere, like this:

B)      If the sun is not a globe, but a disk or spotlight, then it would like an ellipse or oval from many angles , as all spotlights do. Only a sphere has rotational symmetry, that is, only a sphere shows a circular outline from every angle, as the sun does.

1.       And Mr Dubay tells us that the moon is definitely a circular  disk (point 131). Yet it is only a few thousand 
miles above us, rotating all the time. If so, then we should be able to see the moon as an ellipse most of the time, except when it happened to be square on to our current position.

More ways that Dubay’s Earth/Moon/Sun system  makes no sense.

I’ve already mentioned that the sun can never dip below the horizon if it is always circling over a flat disk. At most, it could appear much lower in the sky, perhaps appearing to touch the ground at its lowest point. 

But the same effect of perspective that shrinks the apparent distance between sun and ground would shrink the apparent size of the sun’s disk in the same proportion. 

So when the sun is at the furthest point from any particular observation point it would seem to get lower, but much smaller. That is not what actually happens. (in fact, the moon often appears larger when near the horizon, though careful measurement shows that this is a visual illusion - more here with an interesting video )

So, if we are inside the orbit of the sun, nearer to the central “north pole” hub of the disk, we should see the sun circling around us. According to Dubay’s diagram, the sun circles at the same height at all points around it’s orbit, and at every stage in it’s inward and outward spiral in summer and winter. In which case, it should always appear at the same height throughout t the day and night, all year round, from the north pole. This is because it is always the same height above the earth, and also at the same distance from our vantage point near the North Pole.

From further out it should dip down and become smaller towards midnight, but still be visible, and now it should seem to shrink as we approach midnight, and grow larger towards noon. As Dubay points out himself [find point number] we have measured the apparent size of the sun for many centuries.  Of course it doesn’t change apparent size by any perceptible amount.

Now, suppose we travel south from the north pole and measure the sun’s height above the horizon at regular intervals. As we seen, the sun would start by circling at a fixed height and apparent size near the north pole,. Then as we go south, it’ should to seem to be  start to dipping lower behind us (northwards)  and rising higher in front (southward. This would continue until the sun was right overhead at noon, and dipped to it’s lowest to the north due to perspective

Now, the distance to the sun  at noon will be it’s shortest, because it’s directly over us.  So the difference between the distance at noon and at midnight will be at its largest, the full diameter of the sun’s present orbit. This gives another prediction; the sun will not only vary in a apparent size during the day, but the difference will be greatest on midsummer day when we are directly under it at noon. Again, this is not what people have seen and described for thousands of years.

Flat earthers give vague estimates for the distance between earth and sun, that vary for around 30 mile to around 3000, and don’t even try to calculate from their fallacious claim about rays of lights through clouds (See Dubay’s triangle diagram  in point [nn] again no numbers, though.

Again, Mr Dubay never says how wide his disk earth is altogether, or what the diameter of the largest (northern winter) orbit or smallest (northern summer) orbit of the sun is. He doesn’t understand why numbers matter, it seems.  We know that it must be something like the area of the real spherical world, since there is roughly the same amount of known land and sea to fit it (But see my notes about Dubay’s squashed southern continents, and stretched Australia.)

From near the south pole, which Mr Dubay imagines as a rim around the world, we will be looking in to the ring of the sun’s orbit.from here, the sun will be furthest away, especially in the southern winter, because it will be following a larger circle. So from the islands near the Antarctic, or from one of those tourist ships in the Antartic that Mr Dubay pretends don’t exist, we should see the sun get much tiner still at midnight in December (Southern midsummer)

Of course, since the sun never goes below the disk, we can’t see a sunset, as I’ve already shown. [link] But maybe Dubay could say that it gets dark because the sun is further away and appears closer to the horizon. There no reason that closeness to the horizon would reduce the amount of light the sun gives out, though – there’s still a straight line between us and every part of the sun’s disk. So it must be the smaller size. But that is what we didn’t see.

For the world to become dark when the sun is at its furthest point of orbit, it would have to appear to shrink steadily to the size of a star (if it was any bigger, it would give more light than we see at night.) Has anyone ever noticed this? No, of course we all know that doesn’t happen.

In short the world we would see around us in Dubay’s world would look utterly different form what we do see. Therefore, Dubay’s model must be utterly wrong.


Since I posted this, I've come across this post by Mick West at Metabunk which shows the same point through animations: Well worth a look:

Here is a sample;

here is another good animation showibng how the flat earth world makes no sense at all.
This one is mainly addressed to those flat-earthers who accept that the moon is a globe. However, Dubay's flat, translucent version is even weaker: we should see it as an ellipse, like a coin seen nearly on edge, from many places in the world at any one time,.

This is from David Redlen at

1. The flat Earth. Nothing debunks the flat Earth model like seeing it in action (duration 3m22s)-

2. The tidal locked Moon. According to flat Earth consensus, the Moon circles 3,000 miles above a flat Earth. In which case we would have to see every side of the Moon each day, and the phases would cycle every 24 hours. Example illustration- 

No comments:

Post a Comment

(Please make your comment reasoned and based on evidence . Abusive comments will be totally ignored.)