Main Menu

Search

Introduction

Dear Visitors,

Thank you for stopping at FlatEarthLunacy.com  

My journey to debunk flat Earth YouTube channels started 6 years ago.  
As a scientist with college degree in Astronomy, Physics and Mathematics, I was appalled to find folks telling outright lies and presenting bad science to bolster suspicion of our known accepted reality - that the Earth is a beautiful blue globe.

For the first 3 years I left video comments showing solid scientific evidence that flat Earth is fiction.  It's based on personal religious belief and purposeful conspiracy.   There are different personal agendas at play.   During those 3 years’ channels owners deleted my proofs and eventually banned me.  They worked to keep their video comment sections "clean" of any discussion contradictory to what they wanted to present.

Then for the next 2 years I posted my video comment debug proofs on Google plus.  I wanted a forum where I could post - without being deleted by the channels I was debunking.  That worked fine for a while, but eventually I noticed that about half of my articles, even though marked as "public," were not visible because of Google plus' auto spam/editing.

So in April of this year (2017) I decided to start this new blog (FlatEarthLunacy.com) so that none of my work could be deleted anymore.
This blog clearly shows scientific proofs that debunk everything that flat Earth proponents claim.
Here we also expose the comments those YouTube video channels delete, because they don't want you to see them. 

Thanks for visiting.

For the month of January 2018 our readership was up at 4,428 visitors, reading 6,246 pages - the best month yet!

The Earth is not flat.  That claim is a conspiracy theory perpetrated by ignorant people who have ulterior personal motives and agendas. 

The Earth is a beautiful blue spheroid globe spinning on an axis 23.5° once each day, and orbiting the Sun every 365.25 days.

We would appreciate your assistance in finding the true identity (real name and picture) of flat Earth posters, not already identified below.  If you have such information please email to us.  Thank you.    


   JonahTheScientist.png

  

kind regards,

Jonah The Scientist

(jThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)                 © FlatEarthLunacy.com 2018 - All rights reserved

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

FECORE - February 1, 2018 update: Lake Balaton laser experiment now moving to plan B & C


Update - February 1, 2018

Now moving to plan B and C (shore to shore) since the lake will not be frozen in February.  

The test is now - if you can just see the laser beam from across the lake, that is their proof of flatness -> no curvature.  But that is not a meaningful test.  That only leads to inconclusive results.

They have made no provision that the center of the divergent beam remains exactly parallel to the water as it traverses the 65 km across the lake.

For example, if the laser beam is 8-feet above the water at the starting point, will the center of the beam be exactly 8-feet above the water 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 km's down range? If they do not show measurements to prove that (it's still precisely 8.00-feet above the water) for every meter across the lake, THE RESULTS WILL BE WORTHLESS.      


   2018-02-06_19-03-44.png

Standard techniques for measuring laser beam divergence thru a collimator -

1. Focal Length Method – this one only is ISO compliant

divergence = tan-1 ( beam width / focal length )

-

2. Far-Field Wide Angle Method - This method is well suited to rapidly-diverging laser beams

divergence = 2 ∙ tan-1 [ beam width / (2 ∙ distance) ]

-

3. Far-Field Two Point Methods - compares the beam width at two points to find the divergence.

divergence = 2 ∙ tan-1 [ ( second beam width – first beam width ) / (2 ∙ distance) ]

-

To date no flat Earth proponent has ever put forward a chart or physics/math model for calculating atmospheric refraction on a flat Earth.  FECORE did propose to determine what that value is - for this experiment.  I would really like to see that.  

So far they have not announced that they will be taking temperature and barometric pressure measurements ALL along the laser 65 km path.  Without those, no refraction conclusions are possible.  Without this correct allowance for refraction, their results will be inclusive.

These folks at FECORE are non-scientific amateurs and have no idea of how to do it correctly.   

Here is a complete scientific exposition on how to determine atmospheric refraction:
Calculation_of_Astronomical_Refraction_-_Copyright__2002__2007_2012_Andrew_T._Young.pdf

https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/calc.html



   2018-02-01_12-47-06.png





   2018-02-01_12-47-37.png




   2018-02-01_12-50-26.png





Their laser beam divergence calculation (spreading out) at 65 km is correct, assuming 0.08 MRAD.  

BUT in the real world outside a laboratory, where atmospheric refraction and differential air temperature over the lake is present, the beam divergence will be more than that. 


   2018-02-01_12-44-21.png


- - 
   

Here are OUR calcs...

Beam diameter after 65,000 meters = 5,225 mm

Area of laser point after 65,000 meters = 21,445,143.82 mm2

Laser intensity after 65,000 meters = 0.00013989 mWmm 



   2018-02-02_00-35-27.png

Wattage:
Unlike the other terms, wattage refers not to the amount or quality of light emitted, but rather to the amount of electrical energy poured into the light source. A watt is a unit of measurement for gauging energy consumption. Because some light sources consume energy more efficiently than others, wattage does not always correlate directly to the amount of light produced. To compare the energy efficiency of two light sources, look instead at each one's lumens-per-watt performance, or how much light is produced for each watt of energy the light source consumes.

Lumen:
A lumen is a unit of measurement gauging how much total light a device or bulb produces, regardless of beam focus. Even if two different light sources produce the same lumen measurement, one may dimly light most of a room, while the other may brightly light only a few square feet or even a few square inches.

Watts to lumens calculator
https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/light/watt-to-lumen-calculator.html

The intensity (mW/mm2) of a laser beam on a surface theoretically follows a bivariate normal distribution with maximum intensity at the center, equal variance

A 3-watt laser can ignite wood and paper at short distances

We don't know the exact specification of their laser, so the following may not be an "apple to apple" comparison so to speak, but here is some pertinent laser info to consider:



   2018-02-02_11-47-56.png




   2018-02-02_11-48-59.png

- - 
   

The claim that this Lake Balaton test will be the longest laser test performed in history, is not correct.  Many have been performed longer than that.

Survey of the McDonald Observatory Radial Line Scheme - TR NOS 74 NGS 9 Jun 1978  =   92.9 km laser test
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/TRNOS74NGS9.pdf


BOLLOCK !!! 


   2018-02-12_18-26-37.png

- - 





Published on – February 1, 2018

Discussion at -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7ipUKERU0tzYFxALJBli4A/discussion

Our home page all articles - http://flatearthlunacy.com

kind regards, JonahTheScientist