*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
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 »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

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.

totallackey

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.

totallackey

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.

totallackey

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.

totallackey

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.

totallackey

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."

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2018, 06:28:54 AM »
Here to resurrect this dead post. I made an account and everything, just to post and have a discussion. Let's stay on topic, according to the rules, shall we? I'm here for serious inquiry and discussion. I've looked at the wiki and all of that. I've spent considerable time doing so and exploring many of the interesting topics there.

Okay, we're here to talk about the original post, the video by CoolHardLogic. Here we go.

I don't see anything countering CHL's arguments in the video post by the OP in this thread. I'm curious as to what the retort/s is/are to CHL's arguments (there are 3 arguments in this video) involving geometric analysis. It seems that the math just isn't on the side of this flat Earth model. I did see a brief mention that CHL has made some assumptions, which is understandable. I hope this statement was only considering the mathematical assumptions.

I realize that CHL is making assumptions. That's what must be done in order to do science in a reasonable and practicable way. For example, we trust (or assume) that 9.8 m/s^2 is constant so we don't have to continuously test the acceleration due to gravity in the midst of other experimentation with, say, falling objects.

However, if any of CHL's assumptions (with regard to the maths) in this video are erroneous, please clarify and provide a correction to that assumption. I see there are a lot of places in the tfes forums and associated wiki and resources that address some maths, but none addressing these specific problems.

For the sake of time, I'll add this now as well: in addition to clarifying and correcting any of his assumptions (again, only assumptions regarding the maths), please explain how the assumptions affect the geometric analysis; how those effects are great enough to adversely impact the results of CHL's geometric analysis; and how (with the corrections) the results of a geometric analysis regarding the same problem can confirm that the flat Earth model is correct.

Thanks much. I look forward to hearing from those of you who will participate.

JQV

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #96 on: May 31, 2018, 07:41:26 AM »
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.

.. yet you're the one who moderates  (?) a website set up for your "society"... who's the tribal one here?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #97 on: May 31, 2018, 07:51:53 AM »
.. yet you're the one who moderates  (?) a website set up for your "society"...
That was most certainly not the case in February 2017.

who's the tribal one here?
Given your insistence on attacking me for having called someone out over a year ago, I think your question can be treated as rhetorical.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #98 on: May 31, 2018, 08:20:04 AM »
There are four videos, all good, addressing separate problems with the FE model.
Video 1 addresses the problem of distance. Longtitudinal distances are consistent with actual measurement, latitudinal ones increasingly inconsistent as you move South. Example is distances across Australia.
The OP said
Right off the bat, it looks like did not research much here, because he is missing some of the more sophisticated solutions to the problems he points out. 
Actually I don’t know any ‘sophisticated solutions’ to the latitude problem. Flatearthers agree with latitude and longitude as measurement systems, the problem is to reconcile this with distance as measured by travel time, e.g. by air travel. They typically claim that reported flight times are wrong, as discussed in another thread.
if any of CHL's assumptions (with regard to the maths) in this video are erroneous, please clarify and provide a correction to that assumption. I see there are a lot of places in the tfes forums and associated wiki and resources that address some maths, but none addressing these specific problems.
One specific assumption he makes is about the distance from the east to the west coast of Australia. This is not a maths assumption, but a measurement assumption. See the video at 6:30, where he shows that the distance implied by the FE model is 8,886 km, but the actual distance is 3,687km.  However the ‘actual distance’ he quotes is from Google maps. A Flatearther would immediately object that Google uses round earth assumptions, and that no one has actually done a proper measurement of the distance between those points.



Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #99 on: May 31, 2018, 09:08:46 AM »
CHL is always entertaining, but he has the unfortunate tendency to say what the groups he's addressing "must" believe rather than what they *do* believe. He ends up debunking a strawman, and his follower base is not critical enough to verify his assumptions.
That’s not true. The buffoonery aside, he is making clear and logical points that anyone on the opposing side must think about and address. The distance between Red Rock and Leeman is a case in point. Flatearthers agree (as far as I know) on latitude and longitude, and most FE models use these. But this has to be reconciled with the actual distance. That requires a coherent objection the other side. Not a straw man.

PS here http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-232995971/view is a 1911 triangulation of Western Australia. As I have said in other threads, the triangulation method of measuring distance is separate and independent of the latitude/longtitude method.

Flatearthers need to show that the triangulation method is somehow flawed. But this is a really simple method. Start with a line AB whose length is known from using chains. Then take a third point C, usually a peak, then work out the angles of the triangle ABC using a theodolite. Then you can work out the lengths AC and BC. Then construct another triangle from that, and continue until you have mapped out the whole territory. This is entirely separate from the long/lat system. But it turns out the only way of reconciling the two systems is a round earth. Really simple.

Any coherent reply needs to show that one or both of the two systems of measurement is incorrect.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 09:31:13 AM by edby »