Debunked: flat earth claims about lighthouse ranges


Senior Member.
Flat earthers will quote the height and range of a lighthouse and then claim the light should be hundreds of feet below the horizon at that range if the world were spherical. So therefore the world is flat. But they are assuming the listed range of a lighthouse is the maximum range it can be seen from a ship at sea; it is not.

The range listed is the "nominal range" of the light, i.e. the range the light can be seen when the meteorological visibility is 10 nautical miles. It is solely a function of the light's brightness. Why make a light brighter than it could ever possibly be seen at those distances on a spherical Earth? Fog. A very bright light will still be visible from several miles away in light fog. That was very important in the days before electronic navigation methods became available.

Page 7 of the United States Coast Guard Light List Volume I defines the nominal range of a light:

LL 1.png

and page 16 states that the ranges listed in the table are the nominal ranges of the lights:

LL 2.png


Senior Member.
None of the claims about lighthouses are the original work of today's flat earthers; they all copied their claims from very old and outdated sources, in most cases from books written in the 19th century. For example, one of the most often mentioned lighthouses is the "Isle of Wight" lighthouse (actually it is the St. Catherine's Point lighthouse) with a quoted height of 180 feet and a range of 42 "miles". But it was lowered to 135 feet in 1875. In 140 years, not a single flat earther has ever bothered to verify this claim. This doesn't mean flat earthers are wrong about the shape of the world; it just means none of them actually did any real research on the subject despite their claims that they did. They're just repeating what they read.

The claim it can be seen from 42 miles comes from a 19th century flat earther who wrote in his book Zetetic Cosmogony: "A lighthouse on the Isle of Wight, 180 feet high (St. Catherine's), has recently been fitted with an electric light of such penetrating power (7,000,000 candles) that it can be seen 42 miles. At that distance, according to modern science, the vessel would be 996 feet below the horizon."

Aside from screwing up his calculation (you can't simply subtract the height of the light from the drop and get the right answer), he is incorrectly assuming the light was built with that intensity for the purpose that it can be seen from 42 miles away. As already pointed out in the OP, modern flat earthers are still making the same mistake.


Senior Member.
Yes, you are right, not only the argumentation, but also the calculations are wrong. If you had a light source at 135 ft above the sea surface, strong enough to be seen at 42 nautical miles (48.33 miles), the receiver at that distance would have to be 775 ft above the water surface, not 996 ft. If the light source were at 180 ft and the range 42 miles (not nautical miles), the the receiver at that distance would need to be only at 436 ft above the sea surface.

People may find the following online calculator useful for similar calculations:


Senior Member.
Yes, you are right, not only the argumentation, but also the calculations are wrong. If you had a light source at 135 ft above the sea surface, strong enough to be seen at 42 nautical miles (48.33 miles), the receiver at that distance would have to be 775 ft above the water surface, not 996 ft. If the light source were at 180 ft and the range 42 miles (not nautical miles), the the receiver at that distance would need to be only at 436 ft above the sea surface.

People may find the following online calculator useful for similar calculations:
The refraction of the earth's atmosphere is not taken into account in this calculator. According to the following source, , the horizon distance is further away. To calculate the more realistic (although not exact) distance one may multiply the earth's radius in the calculator with (at least) 7/6.

Running the calculations with this value you may multiply the value of the horizon distance with 1.08. (8% more)
Recalculating your two examples:
source at 135 ft; distance 48.33 mi; reciever at most 534 ft above sealevel
source at 180 ft; distance 42 mi; reciever at most 281 ft above sealevel


Senior Member.
Interesting. 281 ft is already in the reach of the tallest ships (I saw a reference of 300 ft mast on a cruise ship). Besides it, lighthouses are used for secondary visual navigation also by plane and airship pilots, so the longer reach may be useful even in such cases.

Mike Turber

New Member
There seems to be some strange fascination that Flat Earthers have with Lighthouses. I have seen many memes which make claims yet offer no visual evidence to support it.

Nearly every meme or post I have seen about lighthouses, and the distance in which they are visible, claim that the curvature of the Earth should not allow the lighthouse to be seen. Yet not one, literally, not one post has backed up the claim with any evidence at all.

Flat Earther Eric Dubay's page is filled with the inconsistency issues.

If you visit the page, you will see outlandish claims. The problem is that he is not quoting actual maritime lighthouse references. Instead he is quoting from the Zetetic Cosmogony book from 1899. Not one Flat Earther has gone out to verify these claims in over 100 years as Chew pointed out. But here is the bigger issue. Flat Earthers are taking this Zetetic reference information at face value without even checking the facts. And when they post about these measurements they fall FLAT on their faces.

Case in point “The Isle of Wight” or “St. Catherine’s” lighthouse Chew mentions above.

Both on Eric Dubay's page and in his book he states: "The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight."
Is he saying that the lighthouse can be seen?
Or is he saying the light from the lighthouse can be seen?
If he is saying the lighthouse can be seen from that distance, then he is flat our WRONG!
Or there was an awesome superior mirage! But at night?

The claims appear to come from the book "Zetetic Cosmogony" and you can see what it says and download it for FREE from Google Books. It clearly says the LIGHT is visible from 42 miles and that is it 7,000,000 candle power. So sure I believe the light can be seen and here is why.

Info below Credit:

Last edited by a moderator:


Senior Member.'s_Lighthouse


Staff member
Assuming a light at a height of 100 feet, the range to an observer at 15 feet above the horizon will be about 16 nautical miles. This is known as the geographic range of the light. (One nautical mile, the distance on the Earth’s surface traversed by one minute of arc longitude or latitude, is equivalent to 1.15 statute miles or 1.85 kilometres.)

The luminous range of a light is the limiting range at which the light is visible under prevailing atmospheric conditions and disregarding limitations caused by its height and the Earth’s curvature. A very powerful light, low in position, can thus have a clear-weather luminous range greater than that when first seen by the mariner on the horizon. Powerful lights can usually be seen over the horizon because the light is scattered upward by particles of water vapour in the atmosphere; this phenomenon is known as the loom of the light.


This is the key distinction they fail to make: between geographic range and luminous range.

And if they actually stopped to think, they would see that lighthouses are in fact a very good piece of evidence against a flat Earth. Why? Because if the Earth were flat, a 10ft-high lighthouse would have exactly the same range as a 100ft one, light intensity being equal. OK, maybe 10ft is a little low, as it could be obscured by decent size waves, but there would certainly be no reason whatsoever to build one 180ft high, or even 436ft high. How do FEers explain why lighthouses are tall?


Senior Member.
between geographic range and luminous range.

As I pointed out in the OP, the flat earthers don't know the published range of a light is the nominal range. Nominal range is often confused with luminous range and often incorrectly used interchangeably with luminous range. The luminous range is the range it can be seen in the prevailing meteorological visibility. The Coast Guard Light List has a Luminous Range Diagram. The inputs are meteorological visibility, nominal range, and luminous range.

Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Rory Flat Earth debunked by measuring angles to the sun Flat Earth 38
Rory Debunked: Eric Dubay "Flat Earth Proof" #13 Flat Earth 23
Rory Debunked: Rivers flow uphill Flat Earth 87
Z.W. Wolf Debunked: Gyro Experiment - Proves Motionless Earth? Flat Earth 54
David Ridlen Debunked: The Flat Earth Theory. 14 Ways the Flat Earth Theory is False Flat Earth 11
Mick West Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America Flat Earth 276
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 11
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Related Articles

Related Articles