*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5691
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2017, 04:15:48 PM »
Projection much?
And here's Totes, the guy who wants inconvenient sources removed due to super-serious concerns, rushing to the rescue!

I think I've struck gold.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #81 on: February 11, 2017, 04:30:01 PM »
Projection much?
And here's Totes, the guy who wants inconvenient sources removed due to super-serious concerns, rushing to the rescue!

I think I've struck gold.

Struck gold? So you admit that you are just trolling for reactions for cheap laughs?

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #82 on: February 11, 2017, 04:32:52 PM »
Are you just being mean drunk right now? How is valid points trolling? Great derail though, gotta admit.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #83 on: February 11, 2017, 05:06:20 PM »
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR.
A slightly more in depth description.

It uses a CCD sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.

And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?

If these are the photos you are referring to, I haven't looked them all up. Anything since the 90's is likely to be digital. I believe the original blue marble was on film.

Edit: Before CCD/CMOS sensors were in use, you had these things, which I would hesitate to call a "digital camera".

The question is: are the DISCOVR images the only ones supposedly far enough away to have Earth's photo taken in one shot? From my research, that appears to be the case. The other images wouldn't have been able to be taken in a single shot, and there are actually in depth explanations about how many of them were created.

That being said, using that photographs of a globe example is out of the question as far as comparing the apparent sizes of continents when looking at NASA imagery. We can only compare the images that use similar methods of capture/generate.

If they continue to misrepresent the sizes of continents, and the colors of the earth with this extremely technical and difficult method of a satellite suspended perfectly in a gravity pit pointing perfectly at the Earth from a million miles away then we can revisit the topic.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #84 on: February 11, 2017, 05:45:35 PM »
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR.
A slightly more in depth description.

It uses a CCD sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.

And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?

If these are the photos you are referring to, I haven't looked them all up. Anything since the 90's is likely to be digital. I believe the original blue marble was on film.

Edit: Before CCD/CMOS sensors were in use, you had these things, which I would hesitate to call a "digital camera".

The question is: are the DISCOVR images the only ones supposedly far enough away to have Earth's photo taken in one shot? From my research, that appears to be the case. The other images wouldn't have been able to be taken in a single shot, and there are actually in depth explanations about how many of them were created.

The original blue marble was taken in one shot. Other than that, I don't know.

Quote
That being said, using that photographs of a globe example is out of the question as far as comparing the apparent sizes of continents when looking at NASA imagery. We can only compare the images that use similar methods of capture/generate.

It's just an example of a very common photographic effect. It's just perspective. It doesn't matter if it is digital, film, a cheap disposable camera, or a million dollar EPIC camera. The rules of perspective still apply.



Quote
If they continue to misrepresent the sizes of continents, and the colors of the earth with this extremely technical and difficult method of a satellite suspended perfectly in a gravity pit pointing perfectly at the Earth from a million miles away then we can revisit the topic.

Why do you believe anyone is trying to misrepresent anything? The difference in continent size based on distance and lens shape is to be expected, as the provided examples show. The DSCOVR images are taken from a long way away and are therefore very close to orthographic. This means that they are probably the most representative of the actual proportions.

Color is a different matter entirely, and has to do with the type of sensor/film/filters being used. Getting an accurate representation of color is not as easy as you think. Especially since they are often using instruments designed to detect infrared and UV light, and accurate color representation isn't a high priority.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5691
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #85 on: February 11, 2017, 06:09:12 PM »
Struck gold? So you admit that you are just trolling for reactions for cheap laughs?
No, but I must have hit a nerve for you guys to become so tribal so quickly. It's evidence that I'm right about you two.

Are you just being mean drunk right now?
I tend to only drink in the evening these days.

How is valid points trolling?
Presenting logic along the lines of "my points are valid because I said so" really doesn't help your case.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 06:11:14 PM by SexWarrior »
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5691
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #86 on: February 11, 2017, 07:18:01 PM »
Well, I guess I did strike gold.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #87 on: February 11, 2017, 08:08:44 PM »
Well, I guess I did strike gold.
Congratulations then. I see no point in the Internet warriorism though. I corrected a statement about surface features based on distance in a calm fashion. Not because I say so, but because that's just how it is. Everyone can take pictures of spherical objects at home and confirm it.

I know we've had our share of debates, but this is uncalled for.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2017, 04:29:20 PM »
That being said, using that photographs of a globe example is out of the question as far as comparing the apparent sizes of continents when looking at NASA imagery. We can only compare the images that use similar methods of capture/generate.

Absolutely correct.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2017, 04:36:31 PM »
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR.
A slightly more in depth description.

It uses a CCD sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.

In other words, the imaging being performed here is actually more like a MRI or office scanner.

Sections AND specific wavelengths being INDIVIDUALLY scanned and then stitched/overlayed together.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #90 on: February 15, 2017, 04:39:22 PM »
Yup, as per usual a factual debate gets ruined by applying criticism on the semantics allowing you to completely ignore the important part.

It does not matter if the camera utilized is point and shoot. It does not matter that the angle from which the pictures of the globus where taken from differ from the first. You can clearly see that the distance changes the apparent size of the surface features based on the distance alone.

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Even if the field of view were narrowed by both cameras, taking photos that would later need to be stitched together for a complete full disc image, the result would be the same assuming both cameras is set at neutral zoom. It has nothing to do with types of cameras even though you want to make it to be about cameras or doctoring images. It's about geometry and perspective. Nothing else.

The particular example I provided from metabunk is just an example. I've previously provided the exact same example with a soccer ball because people also dismissed the metabunk example back then. There's nothing magical to it. It's not even a technical challenge. It's just geometry and perspective.

Now stop applying ambiguity to every single argument where there's none to be applied. Let high school students debate in that manner, or the other Internet warriors, and try to act like an adult.

No ambiguity.

I clearly stated distance matters.

I also clearly stated your specious comparison of the pics from metabunk are not an accurate comparison due to the point and shoot nature, unknown parameters, and failure to provide any information relative to scaling so as to replicate the results.

Clear enough?

I cannot help it your argumentation is bogus.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #91 on: February 15, 2017, 05:36:18 PM »
Yup, as per usual a factual debate gets ruined by applying criticism on the semantics allowing you to completely ignore the important part.

It does not matter if the camera utilized is point and shoot. It does not matter that the angle from which the pictures of the globus where taken from differ from the first. You can clearly see that the distance changes the apparent size of the surface features based on the distance alone.

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Even if the field of view were narrowed by both cameras, taking photos that would later need to be stitched together for a complete full disc image, the result would be the same assuming both cameras is set at neutral zoom. It has nothing to do with types of cameras even though you want to make it to be about cameras or doctoring images. It's about geometry and perspective. Nothing else.

The particular example I provided from metabunk is just an example. I've previously provided the exact same example with a soccer ball because people also dismissed the metabunk example back then. There's nothing magical to it. It's not even a technical challenge. It's just geometry and perspective.

Now stop applying ambiguity to every single argument where there's none to be applied. Let high school students debate in that manner, or the other Internet warriors, and try to act like an adult.

No ambiguity.

I clearly stated distance matters.

I also clearly stated your specious comparison of the pics from metabunk are not an accurate comparison due to the point and shoot nature, unknown parameters, and failure to provide any information relative to scaling so as to replicate the results.

Clear enough?

I cannot help it your argumentation is bogus.
What a bunch of nothing, way to go!
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #92 on: February 15, 2017, 06:32:39 PM »
The scientific method (providing input and results data so that tests, outcomes, and claims can be subject to replication and falsification) is not all that important. Just trust the information.

FTFY.

No need to thank me!

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #93 on: February 15, 2017, 06:39:07 PM »
The scientific method (providing input and results data so that tests, outcomes, and claims can be subject to replication and falsification) is not all that important. Just trust the information.

FTFY.

No need to thank me!
Hehe, that FTFY thing is so cute. It makes the Internet warriors feel so cool and special. It's OK, "let the kids" is my attitude.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #94 on: February 15, 2017, 07:02:56 PM »
Hehe, that FTFY thing is so cute. It makes the Internet warriors feel so cool and special. It's OK, "let the kids" is my attitude.

Nice to know that you categorize a complete and accurate summation of your argumentation and presentation is "cute."