From this silly video (Sorry Dave! I cannot keep from ridiculing it. It's is mind-numbing stupidity.)
1. The horizon always looks perfectly flat, 360 degrees around an observer, regardless of altitude.
FALSE: An observer above 35000 ft with a near cloudless field of view of 60 degrees or greater would be able to detect the curvature of the Earth. Further, since a sphere curves in all directions, the curvature of the earth can be detected even at sea level.
View attachment 25134
Distance of visibility d (vertical axis, in km), as a function of the elevation h of the observer above the sea level (horizontal axis, in m).
From just 3 m above the surface, you can see the horizon 6.2 km apart. If you are 30 m high, then you can see up to 20 km far away. This is one of the reasons why the ancient cultures knew that the Earth was curved, not flat. They just needed good eyes.
For further info go
HERE.
2. The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained. If the Earth was a globe, the horizon would remain fixed and the observer would have to look down to see the horizon.
FALSE: Again from the site linked too above...
View attachment 25135
Angle of the horizon below the flat-Earth horizon (gamma, in degrees, on the vertical axis of this plot) as a function of the observer's elevation h above the surface (meters). Note that the apparent angular size of the Sun or the Moon is around 0.5 degrees.
So, at an altitude of only 290 m above the sea level you can already see 60 km far and the horizon will be lower than normal by the same angular size of the sun (half a degree). While normally we are no capable of feeling this small lowering of the horizon, there is a cheap telescopic device called levelmeter that allows you to point in the direction perpendicular to gravity, revealing how lowered is the horizon when you are only a few meters high.
3. (Paraphrasing) Since water seeks and finds consistently flat and level surface conditions, the Earth cannot be a globe that is spinning and wobbling around in space.
FALSE: This one has been answered at some length already in my previous posts. It's frankly too stupid to warrant my time but suffice it to say that liquids conform to the shape of their container with it's unbound surface, absent other forces acting upon it, will be perpendicular to the center of mass acting upon it. The surface of the oceans, therefore, are not "perfectly" flat (neglecting the waves which are caused primarily by wind and tidal forces), instead, the surface, at any point is tangentially perpendicular to the center of Earth's gravity. Carry on a tangential plane in three dimensions far enough and you get a sphere. See the above answers for proof that such curvature exists.
Ordinarily three strikes and your out but this fool, Eric Dubay has 200 swings at the bat in this video and they are all false. 200 strikes in a row.
Don't believe me?! Let's continue!....
4. (Paraphrasing) If the Earth was a sphere, water would have to ascend in order to flow toward the equator. The Mississippi River, for example, would have to ascend 11 miles on its journey towards the Gulf of Mexico.
:bang:
FALSE:
When acted upon, water flows in the direction of least resistance - period.
In this case we are talking about gravity acting on water. Water only flows down hill because the center of gravity is below the hill. On a sphere, the center of gravity is always below the surface regardless of which latitude the water is located at or which latitude the water is flowing toward.
5. "Proof" five is nothing at all but a repeat of "proof" 4, albeit slightly more detailed.
FALSE: River's flow up hill for short distances all the time. It isn't weird or even a mystery. Water only flows down hill as a rule of thumb. Water flows in the direction of least resistance. This is why you can point your garden hose up into the air and when the water comes out it doesn't just instantly fall straight down to the ground. The path of least resistance is up for a short while until its momentum in that direction is overcome by other forces such as gravity and friction.
6. This proof claims that large bodies of standing water do not have the 8 inch per mile curvature that one would expect on a globe that is 25000 miles in circumference.
FALSE: Once again, from the site linked too above...
View attachment 25136
A distant boat seen from 6 m (left) and from 22 m (right) above the sea surface. This boat was about 30 km apart. My pictures, taken with a 30x optical zoom camera.
The missing part of the boat in the left is just hidden by the quasi-spherical shape of the Earth. In fact, if you would know the size of the boat and its distance, we could infer the radius of the Earth.
Okay, that now six strikes in a row. That's two outs. Let's go ahead and finish out the inning....
7. (Paraphrasing) Survayers, engineers and architects are never required to factor the curvature of the Earth into their projects. Bridges, canals, etc are run for miles without any allowance for curvature.
FALSE: The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge in New York, for example, has two towers which are 1 5⁄8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases. The Humber Bridge in England the difference is 1.3 inches. This is engineered into the bridge specifically because of the curvature of the Earth and for no other reason. (This information took me about 45 seconds to find, by the way.)
Up to this point, I've been writing all these rebuttals myself but, while looking into number eight, I found a site that has already done the work for me. I'll allow "rubixwolfwright" to pitch the last two strikes...
The following is from
Rebuttals and Refutations...
8. The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.
FALSE: In surveying, the datum isn’t an actual “line” and there is nothing physically marking it. In this case, the datum is 26 feet below sea level and sea level is in the shape of the geoid. So, if you know the elevation of all points along your path, all you have to do is dig down however high above sea level it is and then dig 26 feet further so the water will always be 26 feet deep. This would work whether the Earth is flat or round.
9. 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”
False:Firstly, I can neither find W. Winckler (I found a G.W. Winckler who worked as a railway engineer, but I only found him briefly in a court case in Canada regarding the employment of aliens which I assume refers to foreigners) nor any publication called the Earth Review anywhere and I only find it mentioned in flat Earth posts which never seem to include a works cited or reference section so there is no date of publication either. Another important piece of information that is missing is under what context he was published. Was the quote from a larger article? Did he write in in some sort of letter to the editor? The tone of his writing leads me to believe it is the latter in which case the actual validity of the statement is not supported by the fact that it was published. That is just speculation on my part so take it with a grain of salt, but it is a distinct possibility which should be considered if in fact the Earth Review is even a legitimate publication.
Now on to the quote itself, I’m not sure exactly what he means when he says they don’t allow for 600 feet in 30 miles. Particularly with railways, you have a certain landscape that you are working with and you build according to it, the radius of the Earth is large enough that on the surface, we can basically treat the ground as flat. I mean, just think about that number that always seems to come up: 8 inches in the first mile. That means that the ground drops by about the size of my hand over a whole mile which equals 63,360 inches! That is absolutely insignificant and that curvature stays relatively the same along the whole track if you disregard the landscape and the imperfect shape of the Earth. It wouldn’t affect the necessary length of track either since that is measured along the desired path so if the distance between 2 cities is 20 miles and you go straight along the surface without changing altitude, you will need 20 miles of track whether you are on a flat or round Earth since the 20 miles is measured relative to the surface. So I honestly do not know what he is talking about.
To bring this to a close, these first nine strikes continue for 200 straight strikes in a row. That would be enough strikes to have 66 consecutive perfectly pitched innings in baseball (with two extra strikes left over for good measure).
HOW DO YOU WRITE A BOOK WITH TWO HUNDRED REASONS FOR ANYTHING AND GET ALL TWO HUNDRED REASONS WRONG!
There are two ways this can happen.
1. Stupidity.
2. Intentional deception.
Dave, you're right about one thing. You definitely should be worried about being deceived.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lain:
