*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13375
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #80 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?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #81 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?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #82 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?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13375
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #83 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

hvanmunster

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #84 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.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #85 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.

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #86 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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #87 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. 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13375
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #88 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:





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".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

hvanmunster

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #89 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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 06:09:19 PM by hvanmunster »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #90 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?



You're funny.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #91 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!!!

hvanmunster

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #92 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:





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


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



« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 07:19:03 PM by hvanmunster »

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #93 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. 

hvanmunster

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #94 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.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13375
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #95 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?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 08:11:17 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

hvanmunster

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #96 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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 08:38:35 PM by hvanmunster »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13375
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #97 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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 08:38:21 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

hvanmunster

Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #98 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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 09:08:20 PM by hvanmunster »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13375
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Reply #99 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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 09:51:51 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice