Actually, that would be all about (and dependent on) light's behavior. A larger hot spot reflected to the observer's "eye" (camera) would be evidence for a convex (ball) Earth, an identically sized hot spot would be a case for round Earth, and a smaller one would be a case for convexity. Presuming the light source in question acts like a small fire light we are familiar with, which is just as likely not to be the case.anonjedi2 wrote:a) The video taken from a balloon which clearly shows the sun casting a hot spot on the Earth directly below it. Dubay believes that this would be impossible if the sun was 93 million miles away. I agree with this point.
This is a great point, but also — again — dependent on light's behavior. We know that light curves and bends and even may slow or accelerate; these at least are amazing but proven facts.b) Dubay discusses the 1/8th of an inch drop that should be observable after a mile between two points across a flat distance and that one should be able to see a further drop due to the curvature of the Earth over additional miles, yet this is not observable in the real world (Lighthouse example)
That's a great understanding, one that Simon Shack and others have also come to realize.c) Dubay seems to understand that a rocket or thrusters won't work in a vacuum.
This is a fascinating point, I agree. It could be due to laziness or poor reporting, depending on whom you ask. There are people in this world who claim to have visited the arctic circle and the South Pole, whatever those may be.d) Dubay raises a good point that nobody has ever circumnavigated the Earth from north to south, something I was wondering about myself.
This would be a proof so incredible, we should have photographic evidence from a reliable and trustworthy source. Time for CF members to get out their telescopes (if we actually have any?) or to find and test any images that claim to be evidence of this. I am very skeptical of the "let's look at political flags and abstract symbols as non-politically motivated and non-religiously inspired scientific standards" idea that Sargent and Dubay make.e) Dubay also makes a good point when he mentions that you can see a star through the surface of the moon during its waxing and waning phases.
Yes, one must ask these basic questions and attempt to explain them in 'alternative' models. A good explanation (or at least attempt at one, that seems good) means he doesn't mean to distract and I appreciate that.f) He has a very specific explanation of how an eclipse is possible in the flat-earth model, one that makes sense to me (whether or not it's true, there is at least an attempt to explain this phenomenon).
The lack of parallax to be more precise, right? Further proof (along with Michelson-Morley and George Airy, et al) that the stars appear to move as a whole before our eyes.g) The parallax change in the stars.
More studies of the behavior of light.h) The behavior of the sun, angle of its rays, etc.
To me, what all this indicates is that as we continue to study light we will find it's as slippery and quirky as magnetism — and that they ultimately are related on some level.