Debunked: flat earth claims about lighthouse ranges

Chew

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
 

Chew

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claims about lighthouses are the original work of today's flat earthers; they all copied their claims from very old and outdated sources, in most cases from books written in the 19th century.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.
 

txt29

Active 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:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/
 

Henk001

Active 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:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/
The refraction of the earth's atmosphere is not taken into account in this calculator. According to the following source, http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html , 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
 

txt29

Active 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.

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/04/flat-earth-enlightenment.html

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?
HUGE DIFFERENCE!
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: https://britannica.com/topic/lighthouse

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Balance

Senior Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Catherine's_Lighthouse
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
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?
 

Chew

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.

image.png
 
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 36
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 10
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 13
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top