The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: J-Man on July 09, 2021, 03:09:58 PM

Title: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: J-Man on July 09, 2021, 03:09:58 PM
As we witnessed the dome appears at 73 miles, so Branson is doing the commercial fake out, to a fake space. Send photos boys.  Obviously you can't go much higher without risking death and destruction. That's why Musk uses looks so fake it must be real.

Billionaire Branson set to fly to space aboard Virgin Galactic rocket plane. At the apex of its flight some 55 miles (89 km) above the New Mexico desert, the crew will experience a few minutes of weightlessness before making a gliding descent back to Earth. In other words just free fall awhile.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-branson-set-fly-space-100254752.html

Amateur Rocket Hitting The Flat Earth Dome Within 73 Miles!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdjxzh1O_X8
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 09, 2021, 03:19:44 PM
How does Branson get away with calling 89km up ... space? It's even below the very arbitrary Kármán line. Surely law suits need to follow when wealthy travellers realise they have been defrauded by Mr Branson.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 09, 2021, 03:50:25 PM
As we witnessed the dome appears at 73 miles
Why do you keep posting that video and saying it's a rocket "hitting the dome"?
It's a despinning device. You can see that the rocket stops spinning, it doesn't stop or smash into pieces as it would it if was hitting something solid at that speed.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 09, 2021, 04:02:58 PM
As we witnessed the dome appears at 73 miles
Why do you keep posting that video and saying it's a rocket "hitting the dome"?
It's a despinning device. You can see that the rocket stops spinning, it doesn't stop or smash into pieces as it would it if was hitting something solid at that speed.
You are claiming the rocket in the video is still traveling vertical from point of origin?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 09, 2021, 04:11:35 PM
You are claiming the rocket in the video is still traveling vertical from point of origin?
I'm claiming that had it hit a physical dome it would have been smashed to pieces.
And had it just caught a glancing blow it could have survived that maybe, but it would certainly have changed direction. All that actually happened when it "hit the dome" is it stopped spinning.
Because a despinning device was activated.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: J-Man on July 09, 2021, 04:49:05 PM
You are claiming the rocket in the video is still traveling vertical from point of origin?
I'm claiming that had it hit a physical dome it would have been smashed to pieces.
And had it just caught a glancing blow it could have survived that maybe, but it would certainly have changed direction. All that actually happened when it "hit the dome" is it stopped spinning.
Because a despinning device was activated.

demon AATW thinks he knows how God made the dome and exactly what composites....heh heh lameo
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 09, 2021, 05:14:10 PM
You are claiming the rocket in the video is still traveling vertical from point of origin?
I'm claiming that had it hit a physical dome it would have been smashed to pieces.
And had it just caught a glancing blow it could have survived that maybe, but it would certainly have changed direction. All that actually happened when it "hit the dome" is it stopped spinning.
Because a despinning device was activated.
What evidence do you have that a traveling object striking a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be "smashed to pieces."?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 09, 2021, 05:32:45 PM
What evidence do you have that a traveling object striking a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be "smashed to pieces."?
My evidence is that things going very fast hitting solid things have a tendency to disintegrate.
But if the physical dome is made of some magic property that allows rockets through then great, does it stop them spinning too?
All that happens when the despinner is activated is...the rocket stops spinning. It doesn't disintegrate, it doesn't change direction.
Surely if it hit a physical object it would do one of those things, no?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 09, 2021, 05:41:22 PM
What evidence do you have that a traveling object striking a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be "smashed to pieces."?
My evidence is that things going very fast hitting solid things have a tendency to disintegrate.
What evidence do you have that a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be solid?
It doesn't disintegrate, it doesn't change direction.
So, you are indeed alleging that upon clear audible evidence of the loud pop heard in the video and upon clear visual evidence the rocket stops spinning, it is continuing to travel vertical from point of origin.

Interesting.

Wrong, but interesting. Do go on.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 09, 2021, 07:23:08 PM
What evidence do you have that a physical dome encompassing the flat earth would be solid?
Well, the word “hit” is used. You can hit a liquid of course but domes are, as a rule, made of a solid material. I guess you can have a liquid dome like a bubble maybe. I thought the FE claim was that the dome was solid but as it doesn’t exist you tell me.
Yes, a noise is heard. I don’t have a handle on how the despinner device works but it has to somehow exert a force to stop the spin so that could make a noise.

I’m guessing a bit here. What that video actually shows is a rocket which is spinning and a despinner device stopping the spin. You can clearly see that in the video.

What do you claim is going on in the video?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: stack on July 10, 2021, 05:23:19 PM
One of the original "Rocket hits the Dome" YT posters, after some research, posted a follow-up way back when that shows the yoyo de-spin tech employed and the recovered rocket, without and dents, damage or any evidence of smacking into a dome.

https://youtu.be/L4eY_N9IS3w
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: J-Man on July 10, 2021, 06:30:08 PM
"One of the original "Rocket hits the Dome" YT posters, after some research, posted a follow-up way back when that shows the yoyo de-spin tech employed and the recovered rocket, without and dents, damage or any evidence of smacking into a dome."

Lets understand some things. The Rocket Man was approached by the FEDS who assisted, gave direction, muscle and approval to launch this high. The rocket used a fish eye lens proving nothing. It didn't have a camera pointing up. The excuse was it ran out of fuel, really? A few years earlier they achieved almost the same height. Major suspicion they didn't add some damn fuel?

As it encounters the waters above you hear it, it de-spins the rocket and abruptly slows. Gods Dome, you ain't leaving satan or any of your minions. We've seen rockets skimming on the dome, which almost look like surfing but they can't penetrate.

satan always has an excuse or a bogus explanation.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: scomato on July 10, 2021, 08:08:52 PM
Virgin Galactic is a glorified high-altitude plane. A marginally less suicidal version of what Mike Hughes died doing.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: scomato on July 10, 2021, 08:15:46 PM
One of the original "Rocket hits the Dome" YT posters, after some research, posted a follow-up way back when that shows the yoyo de-spin tech employed and the recovered rocket, without and dents, damage or any evidence of smacking into a dome.

https://youtu.be/L4eY_N9IS3w

Love the use of footage from cameras strapped to weak hobby rockets being proof of a dome, when there is plenty of rocket-cam footage out there showing no such dome-impact. The creator of that video seriously suggests that rocket is the highest and fastest amateur rocket ever launched? That's hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLl7oqdm_B8
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: J-Man on July 11, 2021, 11:35:24 PM
Crappy audio, no video, loser....
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: pjcnet on July 13, 2021, 12:51:37 AM
It's a fancy high altitude plane flight where they then freefall and call that zero G like a parabolic flight, even after they'd dropped according to their own altitude meter well below even the official lower boundary of space they were apparently enjoying weightlessness inside. It even states they went to "the edge of space" in the headlines, so even officially they didn't go into space, but now apparently they've been saying this edge is up to 20% lower than first thought hence how they're saying they did reach space, oh how convenient for them and this fraud. This conman doesn't even need to let his passengers in on the scam, they will come down truly believing they went into space. Congratulations you are now officially astronauts, here's your extremely expensive certificate to prove it.

PS: There's some nice shots showing a flat horizon apart from one camera.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Cypher9 on July 13, 2021, 06:19:16 AM
As we witnessed the dome appears at 73 miles
Why do you keep posting that video and saying it's a rocket "hitting the dome"?
It's a despinning device. You can see that the rocket stops spinning, it doesn't stop or smash into pieces as it would it if was hitting something solid at that speed.

The dome may not be solid (not that I necessarily believe in a dome).
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2021, 08:27:57 AM
It's a fancy high altitude plane flight where they then freefall and call that zero G like a parabolic flight. Even after they'd dropped according to their own altitude meter well below even the official lower boundary of space they were apparently enjoying weightlessness inside.
Yes. There's nothing magic about "space" that makes you weightless.
All weightlessness means is that there's no net force on you, that could be in freefall or a parabolic flight or in orbit. Or in deep space with no object close enough to exert a noticeable force.

Quote
It even states they went to "the edge of space" in the headlines, so even officially they didn't go into space, but now apparently they've been saying this edge is up to 20% lower than first thought hence how they're saying they did reach space, oh how convenient for them and this fraud. This conman doesn't even need to let his passengers in on the scam, they will come down truly believing they went into space. Congratulations you are now officially astronauts, here's your extremely expensive certificate to prove it.

And the FAA would agree with them:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

There is no standard universally recognised definition of where space starts. They go to space by some definitions and not others but where is the fraud? Branson is not claiming to take people in to orbit or around the moon. He's advertising an experience and delivering it.

Quote
PS: There's some nice shots showing a flat horizon apart from one camera.

Yeah. I saw some with a concave horizon too. Lenses, eh? I don't think any of the people who went on that trip came back saying "holy shit! the earth is flat after all!". Funny that.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 13, 2021, 10:49:01 AM
There is no standard universally recognised definition of where space starts. They go to space by some definitions and not others but where is the fraud? Branson is not claiming to take people in to orbit or around the moon. He's advertising an experience and delivering it.
Essentially, space starts in the imagination.

The stories are all over the place with this crap, because of the need to promote the big lie.

The X-15 pilots were classified as astronauts.

LOL!!!
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2021, 11:18:16 AM
The stories are all over the place with this crap, because of the need to promote the big lie.
Well, no, it's because it's not an easy thing to define definitively.

You understand that the atmospheric pressure reduces with altitude, yes? Which addresses the "you can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum without a container nonsense". We know from experience with mountains and airplanes that we have a pressure gradient. So clearly at some point that gradient means that there will be an effective volume. But exactly where that point is, is debatable.

How does that debate help "the big lie"?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 13, 2021, 01:16:41 PM
The stories are all over the place with this crap, because of the need to promote the big lie.
Well, no, it's because it's not an easy thing to define definitively.

You understand that the atmospheric pressure reduces with altitude, yes? Which addresses the "you can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum without a container nonsense". We know from experience with mountains and airplanes that we have a pressure gradient. So clearly at some point that gradient means that there will be an effective volume. But exactly where that point is, is debatable.

How does that debate help "the big lie"?
The entire thing is a sham.

The media promotes it as space. Branson calls everyone an astronaut.

All of it is a higher altitude version of a vomit comet, only not as long and not as large.

Branson is a fraud. And it is all a lie.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2021, 01:47:28 PM
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 13, 2021, 03:31:26 PM
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021
Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: pjcnet on July 13, 2021, 04:23:34 PM
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021

I'd love to see a genuine Flat Earther win it and then report back their experience, but that's very unlikely to ever happen and such a person would need to pretend they believe they really are going into space from the surface of a globe until after the event is over because I very much doubt they'd knowingly allow a Flat Earther go up. The draw might be fair since in my opinion the people going up will truly believe they have been to space since they won't be experiencing and watching everything with a critical eye and they really will feel weightlessness.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Iceman on July 13, 2021, 04:44:48 PM
Who constitutes a genuine flat earther though?

All I've ever seen (in the ridiculously toxic youtube arena at least) is that any time a FE'r converts, regardless of their previous fame or notoriety, they are immediately cast aside as shills or RE plants, dishonest fame-seeking, greedy... name your adjectives and expletives.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: RonJ on July 13, 2021, 05:49:32 PM
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395 (https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395)

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021 (https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021)
Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.
A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?  So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'  I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.  They might as well come to the USA and stand in the middle of a highway and yell 'HEY YOU, you should be driving on the other side of the road'  The FAA says that the pilots were official astronauts. They also have a lot of other arbitrary standards for pilots and proclaim that certain humans are authorized to leave the surface of the Earth in control of an airplane.  So far they haven't started to regulate birds of any kind.  I suspect that a crashing bird would do a lot less damage to someone on the ground than a crashing 747 (which is just another arbitrary model number assigned to that type of aircraft by Boeing).  The bottom line is that someone or some entity must proclaim a standard for behavior and/or licensing for those who engage in certain types of activities.  This has to be done for the overall safety of others.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 13, 2021, 07:29:43 PM
The point is, the atmospheric pressure gets lower and lower as you go up. That can be easily verified, just go up a hill with a barometer.

There is no line where it stops, it’s a gradient. So how you define where “space” starts? Where do you draw the line? Despite Lackey’s straw man, this is nothing to do with what I may or may not be “fond” of, it’s just a simple fact that there is no definitive way or defining it. Any definition will be arbitrary, and by some definitions Branson will be taking people to space.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 13, 2021, 08:15:56 PM
A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?
The British drive on the left (you mixed it up) because we used to pass each other on horses on the left. That way, if the ruffian coming the other way needs a poke from your sword (for most held in the right hand), you shan't be inconvenienced. When we moved to cars, we put the steering wheel on the right so that you could still lean out of the window with your sword and teach that guy a few manners. I demanded satisfaction 3 times last week.  >o<


So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'  I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.
Let me specify an altitude for you. To be in space ... you need to be clear of the earth's atmosphere.

(https://forums.flightsimulator.com/uploads/default/6dfd74e317a18c6c3c38c67c9c767f429ce07564)

Branson is dicking about just above the weather balloons in the Stratosphere. You'll notice actual spaceships are out in the exosphere ... some 10-20 times higher up. An entire order of magnitude. I want to see 800km+ ... not the 80km Branson is boasting about. Check my diagram. Where's the spaceship? Why are we now being forced to change the definition? You can see meteorological rockets in and about where Branson is ... he's just in a manned one of those. He's not in a spaceship.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: RonJ on July 13, 2021, 08:42:22 PM
OK, great now we have YOUR arbitrary specification for what space happens to be.  Now all you have to do is convince the FAA that your specification is better (for some reason) than theirs and everyone, worldwide, can get with it.  I don't believe that the astronauts will be carrying too many swords or opening any windows to poke at the other guy heading in the opposite direction.  They never did that with aircraft either and the pilot in command always sits on the left side, even in British aircraft.  All you've said is that your definition of 'space' doesn't agree with the FAA.  The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.     
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 13, 2021, 08:53:58 PM
The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.   
But here at tfes.org, we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not, and if you want to use "I saw earth from space" as your argument ... you'd better be in a place that we consider space. 
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: pjcnet on July 13, 2021, 10:37:26 PM
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395 (https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395)

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021 (https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021)
Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.
A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?  So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'  I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.  They might as well come to the USA and stand in the middle of a highway and yell 'HEY YOU, you should be driving on the other side of the road'  The FAA says that the pilots were official astronauts. They also have a lot of other arbitrary standards for pilots and proclaim that certain humans are authorized to leave the surface of the Earth in control of an airplane.  So far they haven't started to regulate birds of any kind.  I suspect that a crashing bird would do a lot less damage to someone on the ground than a crashing 747 (which is just another arbitrary model number assigned to that type of aircraft by Boeing).  The bottom line is that someone or some entity must proclaim a standard for behavior and/or licensing for those who engage in certain types of activities.  This has to be done for the overall safety of others.

Flat Earthers don't usually believe there is such thing as space, let alone an altitude to reach it, so Richard Branson's claim to reach it or anyone else's are lies. Instead the majority believe in an impenetrable firmament that covers the Earth like a dome, some believe towards the centre you reach this at around 70 miles up and so called "space rockets" launched by "space" agencies like Nasa never go straight up, instead they begin to change direction towards the ground before they reach it. There's a number of videos that claim to be showing rockets hitting and even scraping along the edge of the firmament however where they appear to leave a blue trail, some believe it's actually dense waters. Many believe the appropriately named Operation Fishbowl in 1962 when officially they were conducting high altitude nuclear detonation tests was a failed attempt to break through the firmament.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 13, 2021, 10:43:02 PM
Flat Earthers don't usually believe there is such thing as space
What a strange idea. How, exactly, did you arrive at this misconception?

Instead the majority believe in an impenetrable firmament
The majority? Really? By all means, please show me your data.

Many believe the appropriately named Operation Fishbowl
I think you can see where this is going by now. You clearly know squat about the modern FE movement, instead blindly quoting memes you saw on Twitter, completely unable to tell satire and trolling from reality. Don't speak on our behalf.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: pjcnet on July 13, 2021, 11:30:11 PM
Flat Earthers don't usually believe there is such thing as space
What a strange idea. How, exactly, did you arrive at this misconception?

Instead the majority believe in an impenetrable firmament
The majority? Really? By all means, please show me your data.

Many believe the appropriately named Operation Fishbowl
I think you can see where this is going by now. You clearly know squat about the modern FE movement, instead blindly quoting memes you saw on Twitter, completely unable to tell satire and trolling from reality. Don't speak on our behalf.

I have to say I'm surprised at your response since the answer to the first question is just about every flat Earth group and flat Earther I have spoken to so far, so it appears to be very different here, there's masses of videos from flat Earthers all over the Internet that discuss and attempt to prove the firmament. A lot have mentioned Operation Fishbowl, although obviously that's purely speculation. Perhaps this isn't the place for me, although I'd be interested to know how you can accommodate space into a flat Earth model.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 06:50:18 AM
Perhaps this isn't the place for me
Relax. As a flat earther you should work on developing a thick skin.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 14, 2021, 10:26:22 AM
Where does London start?  City of London?  Greater London? 

Easyjet claims to be able to fly me to 4 airports in London; London Gatwick, London Luton, London Southend, and London Stansted.  None of these are within any recognised boundary of the City, and Stansted is actually 47 Km from the Tower of London. 

So are they mis-selling?  I'm an intelligent kind of guy, and before I spend my £19.99 I'm going to do my research see if its where I want to go.  I could pay more and get a helicopter into Hyde Park.  Or maybe Luton is close enough to satisfy me.  (Disclaimer; have you been to Luton? Don't).  Can I buy a souvenir London Bus at Gatwick?  You betcha! 

Branson's marketing is quite clear on what you're getting for your money.  You want more?  Just like Easyjet, the developing market is filling up with alternative providers, who will fly you to London City, Earth-orbit, or (potentially) the Moon. 
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 14, 2021, 10:31:06 AM
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395 (https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395)

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021 (https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021)
Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.
A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?
Totally unrelated crap injected, as is par for the course.

By the way, you are required to drive on the side of the road indicted by local ordinance, so it isn't arbitrary.
So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'
You don't know either, which is true and is actually quite refreshing, as a majority of your posts are primarily false. 
I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.
Yes, you would see that, of course. The reason happens to be they did not go into space. 
They might as well come to the USA and stand in the middle of a highway and yell 'HEY YOU, you should be driving on the other side of the road'  The FAA says that the pilots were official astronauts. They also have a lot of other arbitrary standards for pilots and proclaim that certain humans are authorized to leave the surface of the Earth in control of an airplane.  So far they haven't started to regulate birds of any kind.  I suspect that a crashing bird would do a lot less damage to someone on the ground than a crashing 747 (which is just another arbitrary model number assigned to that type of aircraft by Boeing).  The bottom line is that someone or some entity must proclaim a standard for behavior and/or licensing for those who engage in certain types of activities.  This has to be done for the overall safety of others.
Again, shouting out admittedly arbitrary proclamations only serves to further discredit your worth as a meaningful contributor.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 10:56:43 AM
Where does London start?  City of London?  Greater London? 

Easyjet claims to be able to fly me to 4 airports in London; London Gatwick, London Luton, London Southend, and London Stansted.  None of these are within any recognised boundary of the City, and Stansted is actually 47 Km from the Tower of London. 

So are they mis-selling?  I'm an intelligent kind of guy, and before I spend my £19.99 I'm going to do my research see if its where I want to go.  I could pay more and get a helicopter into Hyde Park.  Or maybe Luton is close enough to satisfy me.  (Disclaimer; have you been to Luton? Don't).  Can I buy a souvenir London Bus at Gatwick?  You betcha! 


London is enormous. You missed another of its excellent airports. London Oxford Airport.
https://www.reubenbrothers.com/london-oxford-airport/

Branson's marketing is quite clear on what you're getting for your money. 
It really isn't. Consider the pub below.

(https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/a7/64/da/the-windsor-castle.jpg)

Now, it calls itself Windsor castle, but I think it is pretty obvious that it is not Windsor castle. Windsor castle looks more like

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Windsor_Castle_at_Sunset_-_Nov_2006.jpg/1200px-Windsor_Castle_at_Sunset_-_Nov_2006.jpg)

Your argument is that when you go into the pub, despite it calling itself Windsor castle, it obviously isn't Windsor castle and so everything is fine. And that Branson isn't flying in a spaceship but because we all know that, its fine.

But that's not what is happening. He is deliberately trying to fool people into thinking he is actually going into space. The pub isn't trying to fool people into thinking it is Windsor castle. The pub is a tribute to the actual castle. Blobbie Williams is a fat guy tribute act to Robbie Williams. Neither purport to being the real thing. But Branson insists his flight is a trip to space. Not a tribute. That's the fraud.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 14, 2021, 11:50:06 AM
Are the FAA trying to fool people too? They agree he's taking people into space.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 12:25:05 PM
Are the FAA trying to fool people too? They agree he's taking people into space.

I don't give a flying monkeys what the FAA said. They are a bunch of know nothing bureaucrats.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
Noctilucent clouds are composed of tiny crystals of water ice up to 100 nm in diameter[3] and exist at a height of about 76 to 85 km (249,000 to 279,000 ft),[4] higher than any other clouds in Earth's atmosphere.

There are clouds at the altitude that Branson went. If you think there are clouds in space, then you deserve to have a man like Branson pull your pants down and spank your arse.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 14, 2021, 12:41:31 PM
Are the FAA trying to fool people too? They agree he's taking people into space.
How?

By using an arbitrary number they pulled from your ass or their ass?

And do not be arbitrary in your response.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 14, 2021, 12:51:41 PM
The point you are repeatedly failing to acknowledge is that whoever’s arse they pulled it from, any definition of where earth’s atmosphere ends and “space” begins is arbitrary. There is no firm line where the sky stops and space starts, the atmosphere just fades away in a gradient.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 01:01:15 PM
The point you are repeatedly failing to acknowledge is that whoever’s arse they pulled it from, any definition of where earth’s atmosphere ends and “space” begins is arbitrary. There is no firm line where the sky stops and space starts, the atmosphere just fades away in a gradient.

??? A mountain goes up in a gradient. Does that not mean it has a summit?

There is nothing arbitrary about the point at which there is no more air. That's it. Vacuum of space.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+pressure+at+280%2C000+feet%3F

^That number is not zero. Ergo, that is not space. Get me to the place where pressure = 0 and we'll call that space. A place with no atmosphere ... you know, space.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 14, 2021, 01:04:28 PM
Where does London start?  City of London?  Greater London? 
 


London is enormous. You missed another of its excellent airports. London Oxford Airport.

No, I didn't miss it.  I was listing the destinations offered by a particular service provider.  But you are correct in pointing out that other alternatives are offered by other providers. 


Now, it calls itself Windsor castle, but I think it is pretty obvious that it is not Windsor castle. 

With respect, its only obvious to you because you did your research.  You would want to be sure that its a "Windsor Castle" that satisfies your requirements before you book an Uber.  Would you want to finish up at the the big fortified house in Berkshire, for instance, when your mates are waiting for you down at the pub?  If I was going to spend several hundred thousand dollars on a ticket from Sir Richard, I think I would first satisfy myself with where he was taking me.  Its on the VG website:



APOGEE
Nearly 300,000 feet above Earth, the cabin becomes your playground to unbuckle and experience weightlessness. 


Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 01:11:49 PM
Without doing any research ... you book a taxi as a tourist and ask them to take you to see Stonehenge.

You get dropped off here.

(https://cf.bstatic.com/xdata/images/hotel/max1024x768/262320602.jpg?k=a259a7a8444f93c18a6bacf26edc8839871749a9636f274d94999438a5786534&o=&hp=1)

Are you happy about that? Maybe this meets the FAAs definition of Stonehenge for example. They seem to be pretty flexible in what they will accept.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Kokorikos on July 14, 2021, 01:31:32 PM
I am pretty sure that the people that paid to be onboard this flight knew exactly where they were going.
And I am pretty sure that none of them consider themselves to be astronauts.

Saying they went to space is just a marketing ploy.
The flight was still an impressive feat of engineering, though.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 01:40:32 PM
I am pretty sure that the people that paid to be onboard this flight knew exactly where they were going.
Being as everyone on this flight was a paid employee of Branson, I am pretty sure no one paid to be on this flight.

And I am pretty sure that none of them consider themselves to be astronauts.
Wikipedia has them listed as astronauts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Human_spaceflight_firsts
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 14, 2021, 02:06:06 PM
??? A mountain goes up in a gradient. Does that not mean it has a summit?

I hope this helps you to understand the difference which you are pretending not to understand

(https://i.ibb.co/H4bxnW5/Gradient.jpg)

Quote
There is nothing arbitrary about the point at which there is no more air. That's it. Vacuum of space.
^That number is not zero. Ergo, that is not space. Get me to the place where pressure = 0 and we'll call that space. A place with no atmosphere ... you know, space.

It's nice that it's so clear and definitive to you. To people who know what they're talking about, not so much

Quote
Not all scientists agree that the exosphere is really a part of the atmosphere. Some scientists consider the thermosphere the uppermost part of Earth's atmosphere, and think that the exosphere is really just part of space. However, other scientists do consider the exosphere part of our planet's atmosphere.

Since the exosphere gradually fades into outer space, there is no clear upper boundary of this layer. One definition of the outermost limit of the exosphere places the uppermost edge of Earth's atmosphere around 190,000 km (120,000 miles), about halfway to the Moon.

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/exosphere
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 02:12:04 PM
Question ... do you find an exosphere just randomly in space ... or are those conditions only found near planets? That might be a clue as to whether it is space or not.

Branson however is still in cloud territory. There is no way anyone should describe a trip amongst the clouds as space.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: RonJ on July 14, 2021, 02:36:08 PM
The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.   
But here at tfes.org, we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not, and if you want to use "I saw earth from space" as your argument ... you'd better be in a place that we consider space.
What about the moon? That's in space, according to your own definition.  There's pictures of the earth from there, but then FES just proclaims them to be fake CGI.  So there's no possible way to be issued round earth credentials, is there?  You know the level of gas in your cars fuel tank, or it's oil pressure, or it's engine temperature, right? It's all from direct reading instruments that report the results back to you.  What if I told you that there's also instruments that can measure the roundness of the Earth.  Would that qualify as evidence?   
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 02:37:36 PM
??? This thread is about Branson not going to space. Take your moon nonsense to another thread.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: RonJ on July 14, 2021, 02:47:15 PM
??? This thread is about Branson not going to space. Take your moon nonsense to another thread.
Why would you even mention that 'we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not' in a previous thread?  Who needs to take their nonsense to another thread then?  If you want 'space credentials' you have to see the FAA.  They did issue some paperwork to the pilots who flew the mission.  I'm trying to figure out how I can obtain 'round earth credentials' and who issues them.  Branson's pilots got theirs, how do I get mine?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 14, 2021, 03:00:29 PM
Branson however is still in cloud territory. There is no way anyone should describe a trip amongst the clouds as space.
When you write to the FAA about this very important matter can you please post their reply.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 14, 2021, 03:19:43 PM
Branson however is still in cloud territory. There is no way anyone should describe a trip amongst the clouds as space.
When you write to the FAA about this very important matter can you please post their reply.

??? The FAA is American. It is only the USA that seem to think this low bar is acceptable and they seem to have lowered the bar so that they could give 'astronaut' status to airforce pilots. Internationally ... and I live internationally, no one else recognises this as a space flight.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 14, 2021, 03:24:08 PM
RonJ, stop trying to derail this thread and crawl back to AR where you belong.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 14, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
The point you are repeatedly failing to acknowledge is that whoever’s arse they pulled it from, any definition of where earth’s atmosphere ends and “space” begins is arbitrary. There is no firm line where the sky stops and space starts, the atmosphere just fades away in a gradient.
I am not failing to acknowledge that.

I agree with you.

This fact, that space is arbitrary, and arbitrary essentially = subjective, serves to demonstrate you subscribe to whimsy. You are whimsical. Can't count on you for objective analysis, for there is none to be had here.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 20, 2021, 08:44:41 AM
Now Bezos is off in his giant space cock

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57849364

This one is going to 106km/65 miles. Is that OK, Thork?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 20, 2021, 10:31:53 AM
"with the biggest windows flown into space, offering stunning views of the Earth."

Interesting.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 20, 2021, 10:33:08 AM
"with the biggest windows flown into space, offering stunning views of the Earth."

Interesting.
I mean, it is interesting but I suspect you're getting at something else here and I'm not clear what.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 20, 2021, 11:22:58 AM
"with the biggest windows flown into space, offering stunning views of the Earth."

Interesting.
I mean, it is interesting but I suspect you're getting at something else here and I'm not clear what.
Interesting in two ways.

The ISS or the Space Shuttle didn't have larger windows.

And that using the word space, while being totally subjective in its application, isn't really engaging in the process of seeking or reporting of truth.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Clyde Frog on July 20, 2021, 01:18:16 PM
Looks like Bezos just made it up to the Karman line and is currently plummeting back to Earth.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 20, 2021, 04:46:42 PM
Looks like Bezos just made it up to the Karman line and is currently plummeting back to Earth.
I didn't watch it live, but I saw the replay of the live stream they had on YouTube.

I am going to need to watch it again and make note of the graphics on display.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: pjcnet on July 20, 2021, 04:52:41 PM
Looks like Bezos just made it up to the Karman line and is currently plummeting back to Earth.

Yes another parabolic flight, except this looks much more authentic in a capsule that shoots up to high altitude, then the engines stop, the capsule is separated and continues decelerating up for a short time with no more engine thrust and then starts falling back towards the ground while they experience perceived weightlessness inside. They can pass the Karman line all they like and call it what-ever they choose to, but it's not really space.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Clyde Frog on July 20, 2021, 05:08:55 PM
Looks like Bezos just made it up to the Karman line and is currently plummeting back to Earth.

Yes another parabolic flight, except this looks much more authentic in a capsule that shoots up to high altitude, then the engines stop, the capsule is separated and continues decelerating up for a short time with no more engine thrust and then starts falling back towards the ground while they experience perceived weightlessness inside. They can pass the Karman line all they like and call it what-ever they choose to, but it's not really space.
Where exactly is "really space" then?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 21, 2021, 11:54:05 AM
According to the FE wiki pages, the Sun and the Moon are approx. 3000 miles above the Earth and the dome is beyond the Sun & Moon. So this amateur rocket can not ´hit´ the dome at a mere 73 miles of altitude. Otherwise the Sun, Moon and stars would be outside of the dome.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: pjcnet on July 21, 2021, 02:12:35 PM
According to the FE wiki pages, the Sun and the Moon are approx. 3000 miles above the Earth and the dome is beyond the Sun & Moon. So this amateur rocket can not ´hit´ the dome at a mere 73 miles of altitude. Otherwise the Sun, Moon and stars would be outside of the dome.

I have to agree on that one and 73 miles up would barely be visible above the ground on a scale where we could see the entire flat disk. I would suggest the firmament is likely much higher, quite a few thousand miles up, although it's possible there's something else at around 73 miles up too.

Flat Earthers agree the Earth is flat (apart from mountains and valleys) with no curvature, E.g. we don't live on a globe as officially portrayed, other things regarding the nature of the realm are still up for debate.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 21, 2021, 11:01:32 PM
The ISS or the Space Shuttle didn't have larger windows.

So you agree that the ISS and Shuttle have both been to space? Really?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 22, 2021, 10:38:43 AM
The ISS or the Space Shuttle didn't have larger windows.

So you agree that the ISS and Shuttle have both been to space? Really?
Funny, but agreeing that things have been occupying an area above the heads of humanity for a long time wouldn't cause the response "really?" from most thinking people.

But for clarification, since RE has only a subjective view concerning what constitutes space, they cannot even claim certainty on this either.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 23, 2021, 09:52:22 PM
Whether or not Bezos or Branson officiaaly reached space doen´t actually matter. What´s important  is that they went high enough to clearly see the curvature of the Earrh.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 24, 2021, 04:40:43 AM
Whether or not Bezos or Branson officiaaly reached space doen´t actually matter. What´s important  is that they went high enough to clearly see the curvature of the Earrh.

If they are lying about going to space, why suddenly trust them when they say the earth is a ball?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 24, 2021, 04:53:22 AM
Bahahahahaahaha! 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57950149
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 24, 2021, 06:24:22 AM
Bah. I literally came on here to post this.
Who gets up at 5am to post stuff like this on here?!

Anyway, well done Thork. I mean, they still both saw the globe earth but you’re the real winner here.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 24, 2021, 06:36:48 AM
Who gets up at 5am to post stuff like this on here?!
The early bird catches the worm. Also I had an inkling that somebody was wrong about something on the internet, and sure enough Xasop had replied to one of my posts.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 24, 2021, 06:51:28 AM
From that article:

Quote
To qualify as commercial astronauts, space-goers must travel 50 miles (80km) above the Earth's surface, which both Mr Bezos and Mr Branson accomplished.

But altitude aside, the agency says would-be astronauts must have also "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".

So you got them on a technicality. Well done. But your original claim was that they didn’t go high enough to claim they were in space. That remains false, according to the FAA at least.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 24, 2021, 07:02:13 AM
The FAA know as we all do that this is a very 'cheap' claim from these billionaires who have trawled for the lowest bar possible and want to hand out the accolade of astronaut to anyone who pays up.

Now that's not really what NASA et al want. They want you to think astronauts are brave. And so when men were in rocket aircraft in the 1960s breaking speed and altitude records, they wanted to give them something for that. Little astronaut wings. But just sitting on a small private aircraft to receive the same honour cheapens it.

So they've got them on "You just sat there and did nothing". I'm sure they'd like to get them on "You're not in space" but then they have to remove the honours they handed out to men who actually deserved them.

But the thing about truth is that the FAAs or NASAs version of it is neither here nor there. At 85km ... Branson is still in the territory of clouds. I don't care what NASA say, you don't get clouds in space.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Earth%27s_atmosphere.svg/1280px-Earth%27s_atmosphere.svg.png)


Will be interesting to see if the pilots of Branson's aircraft get given astronaut wings because they weren't sat there doing nothing. That would put Branson's nose right out of joint.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 24, 2021, 09:23:28 AM
The FAA know as we all do that this is a very 'cheap' claim from these billionaires who have trawled for the lowest bar possible and want to hand out the accolade of astronaut to anyone who pays up.

Now that's not really what NASA et al want. They want you to think astronauts are brave. And so when men were in rocket aircraft in the 1960s breaking speed and altitude records, they wanted to give them something for that. Little astronaut wings. But just sitting on a small private aircraft to receive the same honour cheapens it.

So they've got them on "You just sat there and did nothing". I'm sure they'd like to get them on "You're not in space" but then they have to remove the honours they handed out to men who actually deserved them.

But the thing about truth is that the FAAs or NASAs version of it is neither here nor there. At 85km ... Branson is still in the territory of clouds. I don't care what NASA say, you don't get clouds in space.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Earth%27s_atmosphere.svg/1280px-Earth%27s_atmosphere.svg.png)


Will be interesting to see if the pilots of Branson's aircraft get given astronaut wings because they weren't sat there doing nothing. That would put Branson's nose right out of joint.
For the record, no, they didn't "get given" astronaut wings following this flight. 

In fact, they didn't "get given" anything following this flight.  Dave Mackay and Michael Masucci both already earned their FAA accredited astronaut wings as test pilots of VSS Unity in 2019. 

And 100%, in my opinion, Sir Richard and the other passengers have been to space, but have not earned anything. 
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 24, 2021, 10:04:04 AM
And 100%, in my opinion, Sir Richard and the other passengers have been to space, but have not earned anything.
100%? That's incredibly sure of something. I'm not even 100% sure we even exist and I'm not really one for weird thought experiments.

So you think that there are clouds in space then?

Its not just me. Even Jeff Bezos doesn't think Branson got into space + Branson gets an asterix by his name. 100%? Are you sure you don't want to rein that in a bit? The guy used an aircraft and flew there. You can't fly to space using wings. It is preposterous.

https://www.businessinsider.com/blue-origin-says-branson-space-flight-wont-count-2021-7?r=US&IR=T
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 10:55:27 AM
Whether or not Bezos or Branson officiaaly reached space doen´t actually matter. What´s important  is that they went high enough to clearly see the curvature of the Earrh.

If they are lying about going to space, why suddenly trust them when they say the earth is a ball?

Nobody doubts the measurable facts: how high they went, which device they used to get there, how this device was operated (automatic pilot or not), etc...
For the FE debate it does not matter whether they can be called astronauts or not. That´s another debate in which I´m not interested. What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
For decades NASA, ESA, ROSKOSMOS,CNSA etc and all the corresponding governements have been accused by FE adherents of fakery. I sure hope commercial businesses won´t be added to that list. Soon the whole world will be full of liars if we want to believe FE adherents.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 10:57:12 AM
Whether or not Bezos or Branson officiaaly reached space doen´t actually matter. What´s important  is that they went high enough to clearly see the curvature of the Earrh.
No, they didn't.

When will people stop making this ridiculous claim?

But go ahead.

Post the math supporting your claim.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 11:00:39 AM
Bah. I literally came on here to post this.
Who gets up at 5am to post stuff like this on here?!

Anyway, well done Thork. I mean, they still both saw the globe earth but you’re the real winner here.
No, they didn't.

Post your math supporting this outrageous claim.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 11:03:19 AM
Whether or not Bezos or Branson officiaaly reached space doen´t actually matter. What´s important  is that they went high enough to clearly see the curvature of the Earrh.

If they are lying about going to space, why suddenly trust them when they say the earth is a ball?

Nobody doubts the measurable facts: how high they went, which device they used to get there, how this device was operated (automatic pilot or not), etc...
For the FE debate it does not matter whether they can be called astronauts or not. That´s another debate in which I´m not interested. What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
For decades NASA, ESA, ROSKOSMOS,CNSA etc and all the corresponding governements have been accused by FE adherents of fakery. I sure hope commercial businesses won´t be added to that list. Soon the whole world will be full of liars if we want to believe FE adherents.
Easy enough to get a curve out of a camera lens.

Plenty of other photos indicating a flat horizon.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2021, 11:45:33 AM
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 26, 2021, 12:53:30 PM
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?
Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 01:04:00 PM
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?
Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?
It is likely they were more actually concerned with behaving and acting like kids on a rollercoaster, experiencing the temporary weightlessness one could achieve on said rollercoaster or the vomit comet, rather than actually looking out the window. As if your eyesight wouldn't be affected by the requirements of the glass in both of the craft in question, to begin with.

But, as I stated earlier.

Present the math indicating one could see the globe earth from an altitude of 55 miles.

Come on, do it. You made the claim, remember?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2021, 02:44:24 PM
Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?
I'm not aware of any of them describing the shape of the horizon at all, nor do I see any reason to pay much attention to hearsay. Besides, there is no need for you to shift the goalposts just yet. It was claimed that the footage is indisputable. It is beneficial for hvanmunster to understand just how disputable it is.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 03:13:16 PM
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?

Can you pls point to the part(s) where the Earth appears to be concave? I didn´t see that in the footage.
At lower altitudes it is normal that the curvature is not (yet) visible. That´s the same as with airplanes. At 10 km altitude the curvature is barely or not noticable. Concorde flew higher, and even there the curvature was extremely difficult to be noticed. You need to be at least at an altitude of about 35 km to clearly see a the curve.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 03:32:41 PM
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?

Can you pls point to the part(s) where the Earth appears to be concave? I didn´t see that in the footage.
At lower altitudes it is normal that the curvature is not (yet) visible. That´s the same as with airplanes. At 10 km altitude the curvature is barely or not noticable. Concorde flew higher, and even there the curvature was extremely difficult to be noticed. You need to be at least at an altitude of about 35 km to clearly see a the curve.
I will ask you since no one else has done so.

Provide the math that backs up your specious claim you can see a curve at 35 km or higher.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 26, 2021, 03:43:50 PM
Post the math supporting your claim.
Here's a simulator. Set the altitude to 80,000m - about the height Branson went - and set the view angle (bottom slider) to about 45 degrees and in the simulation you can clearly see curvature.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

The source code of the simulator is linked to if you want to check their workings.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 26, 2021, 04:05:17 PM
Provide the math that backs up your specious claim you can see a curve at 35 km or higher.

My preferred maths involves calculating the maximum viewable distance on the surface for a spherical cap, the size of which is dictated by the observer height.

Ideally, in order to compare this with the footage, one needs cameras which provide a view all around the craft, so I'm not sure if this can be applied to Bezos/Branson flights, but I did consider this extensively for the Red Bull Space Jump, where Felix B free fell, then parachuted to the ground, having jumped out of the Red Bull capsule.

The method is simply to determine what range would be visible to the horizon, and compare that with visible landmarks on the ground. If the visibility of the landmarks matches the predicted visibility based on the spherical cap calculations, that would appear to confirm the presence of a sphere. 
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2021, 05:14:29 PM
Can you pls point to the part(s) where the Earth appears to be concave?
Of course. Here are a couple of screenshots for your convenience, with the timestamps included:

(https://i.imgur.com/vnvtvsG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MBWZ5NY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LZ8MZ3Y.png)

I didn´t see that in the footage.
That makes it rather obvious that you either haven't watched the footage at all, or paid extremely little attention - and therein lies the problem with most RE'ers. You should exercise more scrutiny before you declare something an "indisputable fact".
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 05:33:52 PM
Concave: having an outline or surface that curves inwards like the interior of a circle or sphere.
Similare like ´hollow´
None of the 3 pictures show a concave horizon.
The one taken at lowest altitude shows part of a mountain. I hope that is not what you are considering as a concave horizon?

Edit:
I´m not sure what you´re trying to prove with the picture which is taken at 47k feet. There´s tremendous distortion due to the flame (there´s even distorion over the textfield which displays the parameters. What happened there?).
I placed a ruler on the first picture (alt. 32k feet). There is definitely no concave curvature there.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 05:51:55 PM
Provide the math that backs up your specious claim you can see a curve at 35 km or higher.

My preferred maths involves calculating the maximum viewable distance on the surface for a spherical cap, the size of which is dictated by the observer height.

Ideally, in order to compare this with the footage, one needs cameras which provide a view all around the craft, so I'm not sure if this can be applied to Bezos/Branson flights, but I did consider this extensively for the Red Bull Space Jump, where Felix B free fell, then parachuted to the ground, having jumped out of the Red Bull capsule.

The method is simply to determine what range would be visible to the horizon, and compare that with visible landmarks on the ground. If the visibility of the landmarks matches the predicted visibility based on the spherical cap calculations, that would appear to confirm the presence of a sphere.
BWHAHAHA!

The camera view from the red bull jump tried to depict the entirety of the US Portion of the NA Continent as occupying 100 percent portion of the arc on a nearly 90 percent cutaway of the sphere in the background.

If you are able to see a sphere at the red bull apogee, where's the water?

(https://img.redbull.com/images/c_crop,w_2532,h_1688,x_0,y_0,f_auto,q_auto/c_scale,w_1500/redbullcom/2012/12/21/1331580141147_1/red-bull-stratos-mission-attempt)

You're funny.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2021, 05:54:37 PM
Post the math supporting your claim.
Here's a simulator. Set the altitude to 80,000m - about the height Branson went - and set the view angle (bottom slider) to about 45 degrees and in the simulation you can clearly see curvature.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

The source code of the simulator is linked to if you want to check their workings.
AATW - "I do not know how the math works, but I trust the source because it agrees with me."

You don't know the math, nor do you even know if the math they use is correct, plus you do not know if this type of view would be possible, even while viewing from the "LARGEST WINDOWS EVER!"

LOL!!!
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 06:57:02 PM
Can you pls point to the part(s) where the Earth appears to be concave?
Of course. Here are a couple of screenshots for your convenience, with the timestamps included:

(https://i.imgur.com/vnvtvsG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MBWZ5NY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LZ8MZ3Y.png)

I didn´t see that in the footage.
That makes it rather obvious that you either haven't watched the footage at all, or paid extremely little attention - and therein lies the problem with most RE'ers. You should exercise more scrutiny before you declare something an "indisputable fact".

Now that's interesting: I resized the HORIZONTAL size of the first picture (taken at 32k feet alt.), without touching the vertical size. I shrunk the horizontal size to 20% of the original. This emphasizes the vertical lines. When doing this, the convex curvature becomes apparent. See https://imgur.com/a/NpnnJYZ
(https://imgur.com/a/NpnnJYZ)

Shrinking the horizontal size is not cheating. It's a simpler trick than putting a ruler or drawing a line.



Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 26, 2021, 07:04:02 PM
Personally, I'm not convinced of any shape to be determined from what are obviously short focal-length cameras on the Virgin craft.  Face it, the cameras are not there for science, they are there to provide shiny publicity images for the Virgin operation.  You are always going to get this when the camera is attached to the device it is photographing.  The image from Felix Baumgartner's capsule is another example. 

Having said that, the FE cause is hardly advanced by Pete giving us 3 screenshots from at least 2 different cameras, taken at airliner-altitude and purporting to show concavity (unless, of course, he is just seeking to demonstrate the futility of our attempting to draw such conclusions). 

On the other hand, the RE cause is not advanced by making unsubstantiated claims about what we think the craft passengers saw through the enormous windows. 
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 07:25:15 PM
Personally, I'm not convinced of any shape to be determined from what are obviously short focal-length cameras on the Virgin craft.  Face it, the cameras are not there for science, they are there to provide shiny publicity images for the Virgin operation.  You are always going to get this when the camera is attached to the device it is photographing.  The image from Felix Baumgartner's capsule is another example. 

Having said that, the FE cause is hardly advanced by Pete giving us 3 screenshots from at least 2 different cameras, taken at airliner-altitude and purporting to show concavity (unless, of course, he is just seeking to demonstrate the futility of our attempting to draw such conclusions). 

On the other hand, the RE cause is not advanced by making unsubstantiated claims about what we think the craft passengers saw through the enormous windows.

I agree to some extend, but the focal lenght of the lenses does not change with altitude, does it? Yet we see the horizon curving more and more as altitude is gained. ISS is even at higher altitude and the curvature is even more pronounced in the pictures from ISS (the camera's used there are for scientific purposes I presume?). But those pictures don't count because they are (alledgedly) faked.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2021, 08:08:29 PM
Concave: having an outline or surface that curves inwards like the interior of a circle or sphere.
Similare like ´hollow´
None of the 3 pictures show a concave horizon.
Yes, I know what the word means, and I showed you 3 examples of it occurring. If you truly struggle this much with analysing a simple image, then it's no wonder you've been making silly statements all over the place. Confidence does not substitute competence.

Now that's interesting: I resized the HORIZONTAL size of the first picture (taken at 32k feet alt.), without touching the vertical size. I shrunk the horizontal size to 20% of the original. This emphasizes the vertical lines. When doing this, the convex curvature becomes apparent.
No, it doesn't, and you very handily provided us with an image that proves you wrong. Now, it may well be that you're measuring the curvature of the wrong line, but I really can't help you with that, now, can I?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 08:28:13 PM
Concave: having an outline or surface that curves inwards like the interior of a circle or sphere.
Similare like ´hollow´
None of the 3 pictures show a concave horizon.
Yes, I know what the word means, and I showed you 3 examples of it occurring. If you truly struggle this much with analysing a simple image, then it's no wonder you've been making silly statements all over the place. Confidence does not substitute competence.

Now that's interesting: I resized the HORIZONTAL size of the first picture (taken at 32k feet alt.), without touching the vertical size. I shrunk the horizontal size to 20% of the original. This emphasizes the vertical lines. When doing this, the convex curvature becomes apparent.
No, it doesn't, and you very handily provided us with an image that proves you wrong. Now, it may well be that you're measuring the curvature of the wrong line, but I really can't help you with that, now, can I?
Hi Pete. I´m not struggling with the pictures. They just don´t show any concave curved horizon. None of them. This forum pretends to be openly investigating FE and the site also asks everybody to remain polite. So please change your tone a bit. You´re sounding rude without any reason. Draw a straight line over what you interprete as ´the horizon´ or shrink the horizontal size and judge for yourself. If you disagree, then share your disagreement politely please. You might want to point out which statements exactly are false and why they are false. That´s what debating is about. And yes, if the points of view are very different, then a little patience from both sides is requested. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2021, 08:36:19 PM
Hi Pete. I´m not struggling with the pictures.
Since you're about to prove yourself wrong within *checks notes* one sentence, I won't take too much time disputing this.

They just don´t show any concave curved horizon.
Except you just presented us with evidence to the contrary. A bit desperate, don't you think?

[This forum pretends to be openly investigating FE
There is only one person here who's pretending, and that would be you.

So please change your tone a bit.
I will change my tone once you stop pretending that you're not seeing the blindingly obvious. Until then, you're an extremely transparent troll trying to disrupt sincere discussion. It is entirely up to you whether you'll sort yourself out by yourself, or whether you'll be treated like the troll you currently are.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 26, 2021, 08:56:46 PM
Hi Pete. I´m not struggling with the pictures.
Since you're about to prove yourself wrong within *checks notes* one sentence, I won't take too much time disputing this.

They just don´t show any concave curved horizon.
Except you just presented us with evidence to the contrary. A bit desperate, don't you think?

[This forum pretends to be openly investigating FE
There is only one person here who's pretending, and that would be you.

So please change your tone a bit.
I will change my tone once you stop pretending that you're not seeing the blindingly obvious. Until then, you're an extremely transparent troll trying to disrupt sincere discussion. It is entirely up to you whether you'll sort yourself out by yourself, or whether you'll be treated like the troll you currently are.
Ok. Let´s take this set of pictures one by one. First picture: if you draw a line from left to right at the points where the horizon intersects with the border of the picture, then you will see that the horizon is a little bit above that line in the middle of the picture. If the horizon would be concave, then the horizon would have been bolow that line. If you prefer I will post the picture, so it is clear what I mean. If - in your opinion - I drew the line incorrectly, then I´ll be happy to hear your arguments.



The Flat Earth Society encourages healthy scepticism, and seeks to question our institutions and challenge conventional wisdom. While we expect that most threads here will (directly or indirectly) challenge the Round Earth doctrine, this is not a strict requirement for participation.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2021, 09:47:43 PM
Ok. Let´s take this set of pictures one by one. First picture: if you draw a line from left to right at the points where the horizon intersects with the border of the picture, then you will see that the horizon is a little bit above that line in the middle of the picture
You are not going to waste our time "NUH UH"-ing at things which can be plainly seen. You will be expected to examine your beliefs in good faith whilst you're posting here. If you'd rather blindly pretend otherwise, go somewhere else. If you don't make this decision yourself, we'll make it for you.

You asked for your examples, and you were provided with them. Instead of pretending you're not competent enough to realise this, you may want to reflect on why this is, and why your "indisputable fact" was so easily refuted.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 26, 2021, 10:18:09 PM
AATW - "I do not know how the math works, but I trust the source because it agrees with me."

You don't know the math, nor do you even know if the math they use is correct, plus you do not know if this type of view would be possible, even while viewing from the "LARGEST WINDOWS EVER!"
As I said, the code is given in the link. You are free to inspect it to see if they've made a mistake.
However, I've had a go at the maths:

(https://i.ibb.co/1ZkH3m3/Maths1.jpg)

Here is the triangle calculator I used

https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

So, unless I've made any mistakes, it would appear like this - this is drawn to scale:

(https://i.ibb.co/RjBMnfr/Maths2.png)

Looks like a fairly noticeable curve to me, even with a viewing angle of only 30 degrees which seems more then plausible - that's only a 6th of a semi-circle.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 26, 2021, 11:50:58 PM
The camera view from the red bull jump tried to depict the entirety of the US Portion of the NA Continent as occupying 100 percent portion of the arc on a nearly 90 percent cutaway of the sphere in the background.

Did anyone actually claim to be "trying" to do this, or is this just your claim? 

If you are able to see a sphere at the red bull apogee, where's the water?

First, I said nothing about being able to "see a sphere". I said that the various landmarks as seen from the craft clearly show a spherical cap consistent with the height of the craft, and the stated textbook size of a globe Earth. The maths of this is in the first part of AATW's post above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff/lossless-page1-220px-Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff.png)

Just project upward along line h to place the craft above the surface.

The fact that we see no water is sorta the point. The water is out of view BECAUSE we're looking at a Spherical Cap

Taking the stated height of the craft, the extent of visibility is roughly this;

(https://i.imgur.com/6DSiiG2.jpg)

The water is out of visibility, because of the limits of the Spherical Cap.

One can look at the map, and establish landmarks which are within that circle, then spot them on the footage and photos. We can clearly see which are below the craft, and which are toward the extremity of the Spherical Cap. First, there's the distinctive land features near the launch site, as seen in google maps;

(https://i.imgur.com/t31QeM4.jpg)

As seen from the craft, in stills I grabbed from the official video;

(https://i.imgur.com/QwLltje.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/WNulTZx.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/9VEW5kN.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/2h3RI0w.jpg)
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 27, 2021, 08:09:48 AM
Looking at the photo Action80 posted, we can cross-reference to maps and make out the salient geographical features;

(https://i.imgur.com/MyYkDCb.jpg)

Feature A is North-East of Roswell, between the 70 and the 380, North West of "Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area"

From there, we can find A1 and A2, then work out from there to see B, C, etc

The distance between points A and C is of the order of 150 km.

A1 to A2 is around 30 - 35km

Look at the circle around the launch site that I posted above, and you can see that the Carson Forest and associated darker greenery is around half to 2/3rd of the way toward the edge of the circle; which tallies with the view from the capsule. There's still some land visible to the horizon beyond point C.

By all means, if anyone sees any inconsistency in this, please say so.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2021, 10:29:33 AM
Quote
there is no need for you to shift the goalposts just yet. It was claimed that the footage is indisputable. It is beneficial for hvanmunster to understand just how disputable it is.

Cheerfully conceded. I mean, obviously anything is disputable if you operate in the sceptical context.

Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?
I'm not aware of any of them describing the shape of the horizon at all, nor do I see any reason to pay much attention to hearsay.
Isn't that all we've got on many things which we can't directly experience?
How do we form opinions on anything outside of our day to day reality?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 27, 2021, 11:00:13 AM
Isn't that all we've got on many things which we can't directly experience?
I strongly disagree that this is applicable here. We can experience the shape of the Earth much more directly, without relying on hearsay.

That said:

How do we form opinions on anything outside of our day to day reality?
Oh, I don't mind opinions, most people don't have a particularly high standard for those, and I'm no exception. It's when you start calling your half-arsed opinions "indisputable facts" that I get a bit miffed. As a society, have a serious problem with people conflating opinions with facts.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2021, 03:14:10 PM
The distance between points A and C is of the order of 150 km.

A1 to A2 is around 30 - 35km

Look at the circle around the launch site that I posted above, and you can see that the Carson Forest and associated darker greenery is around half to 2/3rd of the way toward the edge of the circle; which tallies with the view from the capsule. There's still some land visible to the horizon beyond point C.

By all means, if anyone sees any inconsistency in this, please say so.
Yeah, the photo is altered to depict an arc of a sphere extending from an inch or so directly left of Baumgardner's head, up and over his head, to a point intersecting with the capsule (top of entrance). The total length of that arc cannot be much more than what you list for the distance between A - C, or 150 km.

So, you are claiming that nearly 180 arc of a 360 degree sphere only takes 150 km worth of land to form.

If you are claiming a spherical cap can be visually detected
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 27, 2021, 03:24:30 PM
So, you are claiming that nearly 180 arc of a 360 degree sphere only takes 150 km worth of land to form. If you are claiming a spherical cap can be visually detected

No, I'm not claiming that at all. The cameras upon the craft absolutely could not "see" 180 degrees of the globe, that's the whole point. The waters of the Pacific, Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, etc. are not in view because an observer at that height cannot see beyond the spherical cap below him, and the landmarks seen match up with the limited view of the spherical cap

I showed the circle over New Mexico which depicts the approximate size of the spherical cap.

I estimate from my diagrams that includes around around 20 - 25 degrees or so of latitude and longitude. Nowhere near 180.

EDIT - I overestimated - per AATW's method above, around 12 degrees
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2021, 03:30:47 PM
So, you are claiming that nearly 180 arc of a 360 degree sphere only takes 150 km worth of land to form. If you are claiming a spherical cap can be visually detected

No, I'm not claiming that at all. The cameras upon the craft absolutely could not "see" 180 degrees of the globe, that's the whole point. The waters of the Pacific, Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, etc. are not in view because an observer at that height cannot see beyond the spherical cap below him.

I showed the circle over New Mexico which depicts the approximate size of the spherical cap.

I estimate from my diagrams that includes around around 20 - 25 degrees or so of latitude and longitude. Nowhere near 180
So, you are claiming the arc I described is 150 km of the sphere, forming a 20 - 25 degree portion of the entire globe?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 27, 2021, 04:40:58 PM
So, you are claiming the arc I described is 150 km of the sphere, forming a 20 - 25 degree portion of the entire globe?

No, I'm showing the approx size of the spherical cap in total is 20-25 degrees, as I said, casually ESTIMATED from the images, but as I edited above, calculating it results in approx 12 degrees.

I have not assessed the arc you described. What landmarks do you see that would help us in this respect? Do you agree with the landmarks I have shown, and the approximate distances between them?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 27, 2021, 05:02:00 PM
Hi Pete,

I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.
Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
  See: https://imgur.com/iaiQf3E

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards



(https://i.imgur.com/N7vkwuA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iaiQf3E.png)
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 27, 2021, 06:41:56 PM
Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
 

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards

But you can easily distort something close to you when something far away looks fine and vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

Think about how big a person's nose can look close to a camera that makes something in the distance look fine. You can't say, the thing close up look about right so the thing in the distance must also look right.

(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/media/2018/05/22/lens_compression_animated_gif.gif)
In order for an image to be in focus both near and far, you need a very short focal length and as you can see above, that screws up how things look close to the camera. If you corrected those, you'd screw up those far from the camera.

In other words, we'd need more info about lens and equipment and to be sure we weren't being told lies before we'd accept your photoshop images. I'd also want to know that Virgin weren't using some kind of Realtime AI round earth image correction to make their hoax seem more 'real' in this day and age.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 27, 2021, 06:47:35 PM
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?
Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?
It is likely they were more actually concerned with behaving and acting like kids on a rollercoaster, experiencing the temporary weightlessness one could achieve on said rollercoaster or the vomit comet, rather than actually looking out the window. As if your eyesight wouldn't be affected by the requirements of the glass in both of the craft in question, to begin with.

But, as I stated earlier.

Present the math indicating one could see the globe earth from an altitude of 55 miles.

Come on, do it. You made the claim, remember?


Hi,

You can find the math here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
Scroll down to the chapter 'Curvature of the horizon'

You can also find more info here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19037349/#:~:text=Visual%20daytime%20observations%20show%20that,degrees%20)%20and%20nearly%20cloud%20free.

And yes, it states the following "Photographs purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are always suspect because virtually all camera lenses project an image that suffers from barrel distortion"
But this is at 35k feet. I was talking about 35 km, which is roughly 3 times higher.
The graph 'approximation' on the wiki-page above shows that at that altitude, the amount 's' of visible horizon hardly increases anymore with higher altitude (because of the spherical nature of the earth)
If the earth were flat, that amount would continure to increase until the entire disc would be visible.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 27, 2021, 07:12:54 PM
Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
 

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards

But you can easily distort something close to you when something far away looks fine and vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

Think about how big a person's nose can look close to a camera that makes something in the distance look fine. You can't say, the thing close up look about right so the thing in the distance must also look right.

(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/media/2018/05/22/lens_compression_animated_gif.gif)
In order for an image to be in focus both near and far, you need a very short focal length and as you can see above, that screws up how things look close to the camera. If you corrected those, you'd screw up those far from the camera.

In other words, we'd need more info about lens and equipment and to be sure we weren't being told lies before we'd accept your photoshop images. I'd also want to know that Virgin weren't using some kind of Realtime AI round earth image correction to make their hoax seem more 'real' in this day and age.

OK. I agree with that (I mean: the part about lens distortion).
This means we're back to square one, because neither convexity nor flatness nor concavity can be derived from any stills of the footage.
So I'm willing to withdraw the word 'indisputable' in my previous post, because apparently that caused a lot of fuzz here on this forum  ;)
Still, my point is: from a certain altitude onwards, the argument of lens-distortion becomes very difficult to maintain, because the curvature of the earth becomes bigger than the natural lens distortion of 'normal' lenses (unless of course a deliberate optical effect is chosen by using fish-eye lenses)
But since official organisations are currently the only ones who are able to travel far enough (and they are alledgedly faking their pictures), I guess we'll have to wait until commercial travels into space (way beyond the Karman line) become possible.

But I see you have already well prepared your argument for that moment : Realtime AI

So basically, we won't ever get any farther then square one, will we?

PS: I have not photoshopped any picture. I placed lines and text over it. I didn't alter anything (at least: not on the first picture).
If shrinking the width counts for photoshopping for you, then I'll agree with you to call the 2nd picture a 'photoshopped' picture, if that suits you better.
I don't want to upset anyone here.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Toddler Thork on July 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM
But I see you have already well prepared your argument for that moment : Realtime AI

So basically, we won't ever get any farther then square one, will we?
Its going to get harder and harder to believe anything you see on video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLP2VEnjI-o&ab_channel=CtrlShiftFace
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 27, 2021, 09:44:23 PM
Its going to get harder and harder to believe anything you see on video.


I totally agree with that. That's why I mainly trust my eyes.

A sunset above the sea (especially with half of the sun hidden behind/below the horizon) comforts me.

tfes explains sunset as light of the sun being bend 90° (and more) for regions on earth that are in the twilight zone. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

If this were true, then the earth - as seen from the sun's perspective - would appear to be a sphere.
This can be easily seen as follows: imagine a large cubical object (eg big skyscraper) with one side facing West. At sunset, only the front side of this cube is illuminated by the sun. The horizontal top plane ('roof of the skyscraper') is not illuminated directly because the rays of the sun are horizontal to that plane.
This applies to both the RE and FE model.

Now look at this from the sun's perpective. From this point of view only the 'front' side of the cube is visible. So the cube appears to be tilted backwards. This applies to any object which is in the twilight zone between day and night, allover the flat earth (that is: on a circle around and below the sun, as can be seen on many FE models). Objects directly below the sun (at 'midday') are seen from above, because the sunrays are going in a direct straight line from sun to earth (also in the FE model). So the flat earth would appear to be a sphere when seen from that perspective.

Ironically this is in accordance with the pictures from NASA. But FE adherents claim that all of these pictures are faked.

The fact that the flat earth would appear to be a sphere, can also be proved mathematically, because the bent lightrays of the FE model, falling on a flat surface are mathematically equivalent to the straight lightrays of the RE model, falling on a spherical surface. That is: if the curvature of the lightrays is carefully selected in order to correspond with what is observed in real life.
And since they are equivalent in one direction (from sun to earth), they have to be equivalent in the opposite direction as well.

Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 27, 2021, 09:49:55 PM
I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.
Okay. I'll watch from the sidelines and see for myself just how serious you are. So far, you're off to a terrible start, still denying the blindingly obvious, and trying to rationalise it away desperately. You're off to a terrible start, but hey, let's see how you handle things.

You did, unsurprisingly, measure the curvature of the wrong reference point, and you hyperfixated on the only image you could manipulate in that way - but we both knew that was coming. After all, you had no other choice if you wanted to force the RET narrative. Let's call that strike one.

Will you fix that by yourself, or are we going to have to drag you, kicking and screaming, through the process?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 27, 2021, 10:04:21 PM
I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.
Okay. I'll watch from the sidelines and see for myself just how serious you are. So far, you're off to a terrible start, still denying the blindingly obvious, and trying to rationalise it away desperately. You're off to a terrible start, but hey, let's see how you handle things.

You did, unsurprisingly, measure the curvature of the wrong reference point, and you hyperfixated on the only image you could manipulate in that way - but we both knew that was coming. After all, you had no other choice if you wanted to force the RET narrative. Let's call that strike one.

Will you fix that by yourself, or are we going to have to drag you, kicking and screaming, through the process?

No, I'm done with the 3 pictures. The debate has been sorted out with other members on this forum. I said I was willing to withdraw the word 'indisputable', as it clearly did upset some people here.
I also clarified my arguments, but I didn't admit being wrong. We called it even.

I'll see what the future brings.


Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 27, 2021, 10:22:13 PM
No, I'm done with the 3 pictures.
That's a shame. You've only touched one of them, and you exposed yourself as someone who's not interested in a discussion, but rather in reinforcing your own preconceptions, even against the plainly visible. You chose to just pretend not to see the flaw in your argument even after we rubbed your face all over it. A terrible start which will weigh you down here for as long as it takes you to sort yourself out.

But who knows - perhaps you will learn with future failures, even if you choose not to admit them.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 28, 2021, 08:33:16 AM
That´s a shame....

Actually I am still willing to debate the 3 pictures, but since you warned up to 3 times that I was going to get kicked off this forum if I insisted, I decided to stop arguing. It´s up to you to decide whether or not you want to continue with this topic.
If no, then I suggest we both stop arguing. we forget about it, call it even and wait for the next topic.
If yes, then I´m in. But in that case I would like to debate in mutual respect and on equal terms, which means that I´m allowed to defend my arguments uncensored, without the risk of getting expelled. (here in Europe we value the right ´freedom of speach´ as much as Americans do)

So it´s your decision. You´re the moderator.

Either way, you have my promise that I will never use rude language and I´ll treat any idea or argument respectfully, without laughing it away, no matter how outlandish the idea might seem to me. And I expect the same from the other members here.
After all, that is what you are looking for, if you were being honest in the YT interview ´coffee with a flat earther´. Isn´t it?

So I´m awaiting your decision and I´m hoping for/expecting less aggressive language from your side if there´s still a future for me on this forum.
Best regards
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 28, 2021, 09:36:37 AM
Hi Pete,

I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.
Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
  See: https://imgur.com/iaiQf3E

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards



(https://i.imgur.com/N7vkwuA.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iaiQf3E.png)

The original image in question was captured at short-haul airliner altitude during the airborne glide back to base.  Covid-permitting, many of us will have an opportunity to take clearer photographs this summer. 
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 28, 2021, 10:06:42 AM
Isn't that all we've got on many things which we can't directly experience?
I strongly disagree that this is applicable here. We can experience the shape of the Earth much more directly, without relying on hearsay.

Hmm. See, the trouble with that is that people have been doing that for over 2000 years
Anyone can observe that ships disappear hull first below the horizon or that you can't see the bottom of objects across a large body of water.
You can observe that the distance to the horizon gets bigger with altitude, as does the angle of dip to the horizon.
You can observe that during a lunar eclipse the shape of the shadow cast on the moon is round
These are characteristics of living on a sphere.
 
The trouble is you lot have come along and provided alternative explanations. And hey, maybe you're right (you aren't). But the point is none of the observations I have mentioned directly tell you the shape of the earth. They are more along the lines of "if the earth is a sphere then things would disappear bottom first below the horizon, if the earth is flat then they wouldn't, things would just get smaller until they are too small to see or rendered invisible by limits of visibility". You observe the former and thus conclude that a globe is a more likely explanation.
I'd suggest that going high enough to actually see the earth as it really is, is the only way to directly experience the shape of the Earth. And that - to continue our previous discussion in CN - is unlikely to be a common experience in our lifetimes. But I don't think we should dismiss the accounts of those who have experienced it for themselves.

Quote
Oh, I don't mind opinions, most people don't have a particularly high standard for those, and I'm no exception. It's when you start calling your half-arsed opinions "indisputable facts" that I get a bit miffed. As a society, have a serious problem with people conflating opinions with facts.

The last sentence is spot on, that is a massive problem. Unfortunately in the days of the internet it's increasingly difficult to discern the difference between an authoritative and reliable source and "some bloke" who just set up a website and is spouting nonsense. Both websites might be well designed and laid out, it's not trivial to tell the difference.
Although I don't think the line is as distinct as we like to think. It's like the difference between "believing" something and "knowing" it. The only actual difference is your own perception of how certain you are. That doesn't mean you're right. Scientific "facts" have often been shown to be wrong as new discoveries are made.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 28, 2021, 10:49:06 AM
These are characteristics of living on a sphere.
Of course, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't the case, and why it isn't, so let's pretend you've repeated all your tired arguments and we moved past this. If you really want to relive the experience, just read an older thread.
 
But the point is none of the observations I have mentioned directly tell you the shape of the earth.
Indeed - you had to cherry-pick experiences to avoid the ones that destroy the RE model. If you went for direct experiences you can currently access, you'd be cruising for an own goal.

They are more along the lines of "if the earth is a sphere then things would disappear bottom first below the horizon, if the earth is flat then they wouldn't, things would just get smaller until they are too small to see or rendered invisible by limits of visibility".
This is not only a terrible example of an experience that could determine the shape of the Earth, you also misrepresented the FE side of the argument. I promised not to immediately assume the worst out of you, so here we go: you are very mistaken about the FE prediction, and I really doubt you'll be able to reach many meaningful conclusions without first understanding the position you're arguing against. RE'ers going "NUH UH IF EARTH FLAT THEN YOU BELIEVE <thing no FE'er would ever believe>" is a major barrier to RE zealots examining the subject sincerely.

I'd suggest that going high enough to actually see the earth as it really is, is the only way to directly experience the shape of the Earth.
Except for the fact that this experience breaks completely under EA. You would simply see what you want to see, and you've already decided and declared what that would be. It would get us precisely nowhere.

Although I don't think the line is as distinct as we like to think. It's like the difference between "believing" something and "knowing" it. The only actual difference is your own perception of how certain you are. That doesn't mean you're right. Scientific "facts" have often been shown to be wrong as new discoveries are made.
That's why I focused on the word "indisputable". I would accept it as indisputable that if I drop a heavy object while standing on the Earth's surface, that object will fall to the ground. Someone could dispute that just to make a point, but no such dispute would go particularly far.

People misusing the word "fact" to mean "opinion, but really strong this time" is also a problem, but I don't think it's one that's fully solvable - my suggestion would be to keep punching that confidence down until you reach a reasonable standard. Is it an indisputable fact that if I drop my mug, it'll fall to the floor? Yeah, more or less. Is it an indisputable fact that it will break on impact? No, though I'm pretty sure it would, having dropped many mugs before. Is it an indisputable fact that the mug handle will break off on impact, and shatter into precisely 3 pieces? No, and that particular scenario is not very likely.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2021, 10:56:10 AM
So, you are claiming the arc I described is 150 km of the sphere, forming a 20 - 25 degree portion of the entire globe?

No, I'm showing the approx size of the spherical cap in total is 20-25 degrees, as I said, casually ESTIMATED from the images, but as I edited above, calculating it results in approx 12 degrees.

I have not assessed the arc you described. What landmarks do you see that would help us in this respect? Do you agree with the landmarks I have shown, and the approximate distances between them?
I am stating that if the distance you claim for A-C is 150km, the distance for the chord that could be drawn for intersecting the surface below the arc depicted in the picture would be approximately the same distance, rendering your analysis faulty.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 28, 2021, 01:59:29 PM
These are characteristics of living on a sphere.
Of course, you've been here long enough to know that this isn't the case, and why it isn't
??? All those things are what you'd expect to observe if you were living on a sphere.
I didn't say that was the only explanation and FE does have other explanations for them, but that doesn't change what I said.
 
Quote
Indeed - you had to cherry-pick experiences to avoid the ones that destroy the RE model.

I didn't cherry pick, I just mentioned a few things off the top of my head which we can observe which are consistent with us living on a sphere.
The fact there could be other explanations for those observations is neither here nor there - which is my exact point.
These observations do not tell us the shape of the earth directly.
What are the experiences we can directly observe in our day to day lives which "destroy the RE model"?

Quote
This is not only a terrible example of an experience that could determine the shape of the Earth, you also misrepresented the FE side of the argument.

I didn't represent or misrepresent the FE side of the argument and I have acknowledged elsewhere that FE has an explanation for this observation. I'm not talking about an "FE Prediction", what does that even mean? I'm just talking about what prediction I would make given my model of reality. That model tells me that if I have line of sight to an object then I can see it. And on a flat earth with a flat ocean then I'll always have line of sight to a ship going out to sea - if I'm above the wave level. This does all assume that light goes in straight lines of course, and I know that refraction is a thing. But even accounting for that, I would not expect a ship to sink below the horizon hull first on a FE. Unless some other mechanism is in play of course, and as I have repeatedly acknowledged, you have hypothesised one.

Quote
RE'ers going "NUH UH IF EARTH FLAT THEN YOU BELIEVE <thing no FE'er would ever believe>" is a major barrier to RE zealots examining the subject sincerely.

Agreed, with a side dish of pointing out there is no coherent universally accepted FE model. So it's hard to say that no FE'er would believe a certain thing.
And I didn't even talk about FE beliefs here. Again, I acknowledged that all the observations which I mentioned have an FE explanation.


Except for the fact that this experience breaks completely under EA. You would simply see what you want to see, and you've already decided and declared what that would be. It would get us precisely nowhere.

Well, I expect to see a globe. I know what spheres look like, I'd expect to see that if I was high enough - which would admittedly have to be "Apollo" high if I wanted to see the whole thing.
And if this "experience breaks completely under EA" then what way is there of determining the earth?
Does the sun sink beneath the horizon bottom first because we live on a globe or because EA is a thing? What is the observation we can make which discriminates between those possibilities?

And here's the problem. Did Branson observe a curved horizon (if he did, and I agree I've not heard him claim as such) because the earth is a globe and he was high enough to discern the curvature, or because of EA (if that is the FE explanation, to be honest I'm struggling to get my head around it). If either of those are possible then how to we determine the true shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 28, 2021, 02:02:00 PM
I am stating that if the distance you claim for A-C is 150km, the distance for the chord that could be drawn for intersecting the surface below the arc depicted in the picture would be approximately the same distance, rendering your analysis faulty.

Are you talking about the chord below the arc you described across the picture, like this;

(https://i.imgur.com/557ruHn.jpg)

... or the chord below my line A-C?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2021, 03:53:46 PM
I am stating that if the distance you claim for A-C is 150km, the distance for the chord that could be drawn for intersecting the surface below the arc depicted in the picture would be approximately the same distance, rendering your analysis faulty.

Are you talking about the chord below the arc you described across the picture, like this;

(https://i.imgur.com/557ruHn.jpg)

... or the chord below my line A-C?
The red line you have drawn is what I am referring to.

I did not see a chord you drew for A-C.

I believe the red line you drew is roughly the same length as the distance between A-C.

If it is, I believe that renders your analysis faulty.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 28, 2021, 05:15:06 PM
The red line you have drawn is what I am referring to.

I believe the red line you drew is roughly the same length as the distance between A-C.

Can you tell us why? Have you identified any features or landmarks which would show the distance on the surface?

I think I have a few reference points, but I'm not complete on it. Later.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2021, 05:53:10 PM
The red line you have drawn is what I am referring to.

I believe the red line you drew is roughly the same length as the distance between A-C.

Can you tell us why? Have you identified any features or landmarks which would show the distance on the surface?

I think I have a few reference points, but I'm not complete on it. Later.
I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 29, 2021, 09:15:13 AM
I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

but you would agree, surely, that regardless of whether the scene is curved or flat, that things further from the camera appear proportionally smaller than those near to it?

A surface length of X km close to camera occupies more of the field of view than a similar X km far from the camera?

Example using height difference rather than length on the surface;

(https://i1.wp.com/digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1197168132_e13a091128_o.jpg?resize=400%2C600&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 29, 2021, 10:32:42 AM
I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

but you would agree, surely, that regardless of whether the scene is curved or flat, that things further from the camera appear proportionally smaller than those near to it?

A surface length of X km close to camera occupies more of the field of view than a similar X km far from the camera?

Example using height difference rather than length on the surface;

(https://i1.wp.com/digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1197168132_e13a091128_o.jpg?resize=400%2C600&ssl=1)

Your example shows not only height difference, but also length difference on the surface. Surely the distance between the feet of the girl is much smaller than the distance between the ´feet´ of the Eifel tower. :)
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2021, 12:17:02 PM
I believe it to be roughly the same length because it appears to be the same length.

but you would agree, surely, that regardless of whether the scene is curved or flat, that things further from the camera appear proportionally smaller than those near to it?

A surface length of X km close to camera occupies more of the field of view than a similar X km far from the camera?

Example using height difference rather than length on the surface;

(https://i1.wp.com/digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1197168132_e13a091128_o.jpg?resize=400%2C600&ssl=1)
Well, you gave an FOV in your original submission, stating why water couldn't be seen.

How large a radius did that reflect?

That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

Or are you just going to forget you wrote that?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 29, 2021, 03:59:51 PM
Well, you gave an FOV in your original submission, stating why water couldn't be seen. How large a radius did that reflect?"

No, I showed the limit of visibility from the camera and capsule, along the axis of the camera, not a Field of View.

The FoV across the picture depends on the focal length of the lens used, and I don't have that available. I know it was a GoPro, but without knowing which one...
 
I reckon, as stated above, the limit of visibility (from camera to that limit point, measured in a straight line from camera to surface) to be around 706km. The arc on the surface below this, and the chord below that, will be approximately the same, but will differ.



That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

I don't see how you can calculate the arc/chord across the frame without knowing the angle covered by the camera across its FoV, or by reference to landmarks in the frame. I don't see that can be derived from the distance to the limit of visibility along the axis of the camera. If we had the camera FoV in degrees, we can calculate the arc/chord easily with simple geometry.

We can clearly see how the distances on the surface take up different lengths within the frame, depending on whether they are closer or further away.

Do you agree with the identification of landmarks and features so far, and the distances between them?
Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: hvanmunster on July 29, 2021, 07:56:41 PM
Hi,

As I mentioned before in a earlier reply to Toddler Thork, I think the entire 7 pages of discussions could be stopped at once if the FE team members would use the concept of Electromagnetic Acceleration to explain the apparent curvature of the horizon in the footage, as explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

On that page, EA is suggested as a possible  or alternative explanation of why we see the sun touching the horizon at sunset.
This is explained by accepting that the light of the sun bends due to EA

The tfes wiki pages also mentions that this bending happens not only for light coming directly from the sun, but also for light coming from elsewhere, like f.i. the horizon, see chapter 'Horizon Dip' on that same page.

As a result: the horizon should appear to be curved when seen from a great distance (high altitude). And thus the footage of the curved horizon at high altitude is in accordance with both the RE and the FE model.

Unfortunately (for FE), accepting EA creates other problems.

Althoug the concept of EA is explained in detail (again: as a "possibility", an alternative for the RE), the reason why EA is able to bend the light, is not explained (still unknown?). Also the math behind it needs more explanation. Just one example: The page explains that the value of Bèta is not yet know (fair enough), but that means that the formula can not be used as an approximation - not even close to - despite it being presented like that. The accompanying text with the formula also contains an error, so there is some work here for FE to improve the quality of that page.

EA basically looks a bit like a wild guess (but not impossible) in the way it is explained on tfes wiki. EA  is a fundamental pillar for the FE model - it tries to explain several types of observations, but the way it is presented on this wiki not only suggests that a mathematical model is inexistant, even the concept in itself already contains some inconsitencies. I´d like to propose a couple of suggestions.

In accordance with the policy of this forum, I suppose that the discussion about EA and it's formula should not be further discussed in this thread. Instead, it would probably require a new thread on anothor board.
If any FE team member is willing to discuss the 'flaws' (as seen from my perspective) of the formula and the concept, please feel free to open a new thread under the correct location.
It could contribute to improve the quality of the wiki page.

For reference, here´s the formula:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/92/Bendy.png)
Note that this formula could be simplified to
y = k . x^4/3, where k is a constant of which the value will be known as soon as the value of Bèta is known. Real mathematicians always write their formulas as simple as possible, so it´s unclear why Parsifal didn´t apply this basic rule.

Plot of the formula (for Bèta = 1 and c expressed in km/s):
(https://i.imgur.com/H6y40gs.png)
Note that the overall shape of the fomula does not change with changing values of Bèta. Tested for a very small positive value of Béta (1x10e-11) as well as for a very big positive value (1x10e+11).
The plot is symmetrical (mirrored) around the y-axis for negative values of x (y is always positive)


Ref: hvm_20120730_p01




Title: Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
Post by: Tumeni on July 30, 2021, 05:29:05 PM
That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

I believe the capsule was roughly above point X when Felix jumped. The first few seconds of his descent, from the camera above,
show him plummeting toward this point.

(https://i.imgur.com/oDw6zBr.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/qkfyAFJ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/l30vkRQ.jpg)

The camera in the arc photo appears to be aimed roughly North. The RH end of land feature A is slightly West of North from X, and is off-centre to the left in the photo, as is Fort Sumner (red dot), at the bend in the Pecos River where it bears West, and just in front of Felix's visor, having run North up to this point. This indicates a general Northerly aim of the camera.

The starting points for reference are A, A1 and A2. Their locations are determined by reference to distinctive land features.

A is the dark valley (?) just left of centre, and reference point A is roughly the centre of the RH 'ball end' of it.

Go left, and there's a distinct 6-dot pattern of light areas meeting the inverted "V" of a dark valley. A1 is the light patch to the left of this.

Above A is the "ridge with a V", and above this the dead-straight line of I-70. If we work right from A, there's an unclassified
road running North/South, a cluster forming an approximate V on its side, pointing right, an oval dark area, and a triple cluster of light ground at A2 with highway 42 to the right.

So the base edge of the photo frame, a rough line through A1, A and A2 is around 28km from the point directly under the camera. As per first and third photos above.

Point B in my original is the distinctive cluster of bends in the river, south of Fort Sumner, which is shown with a red dot above. Zoom out on the map a bit, and;

(https://i.imgur.com/SH3Dbyq.jpg)

The second red dot, above Fort Sumner in the picture, but to North North West of it, is Turkey Mountains, West of the junction of I-25 and highway 120 at Wagon Mound. You can see the forest areas which broadly encircle it in the photo. The dark area of forest beyond it is, broadly speaking, Carson National Forest. On the map, with a purple line from Fort Sumner to Turkey Mountains;

(https://i.imgur.com/qylQbUC.jpg)

(Original A/B/C line in green, line to LH edge of picture below that)

From maps

A to A1 is around 26km
A to A2 is around 26km to the highway

A to B is around 55km
A to Fort Sumner is 103km, measured to the Dallas Park Stadium, which seems fairly central in the town

A to Turkey Mountains is around 280km.
 
We can extend these lines beyond these targets to establish what would be at 706km distance, beyond these landmarks.

Taking a line from X to the leftmost edge of your arc would go through the top of the Cibola Forest, then Valles Caldera, and
the limit of 706km would be around Moab and Grand Junction, south-east of Salt Lake City.

If we extend the upper line through Turkey Mountains, 706km leads to a point just North of Aspen.

Add these two vectors to the large-scale map, and -

(https://i.imgur.com/WEEl3Fy.jpg)

I reckon the angle between the two to be around 20 degrees out of the camera's FoV.

The complete circle with a radius of 706km would have a circumference of 360 degrees, length = 4,436 km

20 degrees out of 360 = (20/360)*4436 = 246km.

This tallies broadly with Google Earth's distance from Aspen to Moab, around 265km. Derivation of the width of this arc from landmarks and sightlines therefore tallies broadly with textbook distance.

I reckon the arc you described, from left of the frame to where it is obscured by the capsule, to be approx. 48 degrees of the camera's  FoV, therefore approx. 590km.  (48/20 * 246) If the left-hand sector is 20 degrees, as determined above, the right-hand one is, by visual estimation, around 28.

(https://i.imgur.com/XVIBjVw.jpg)