[nickrulercreator]

Tom Scott, famous youtube scientist person, recently uploaded this video onto youtube: , where he released garlic bread on a high-altitude balloon, strapped a non-fisheye lens to it, and sent it off into the upper atmosphere. While it did NOT reach space as it's so claimed in the title (Tom even acknowledges this in the beginning of the video), it did get WAY up there, about 35.8km when the balloon pops. In the video, numerous clips were shown where the earth's horizon was curved! When the horizon was in the bottom of the frame, the horizon still curved downward, not upward as it should if the lens was fisheye. Here's screenshots with the timestamps included: https://imgur.com/a/dzJq2MH (this one shows the curve just before the balloon popped at 35.8km). https://imgur.com/a/Xk0z04O (this one shows the curve just after the balloon popped at 35.5km).

Notice how neither photo has the horizon filling up more than half the frame, and yet the horizon still curves away from the middle, rather than toward it if it was fisheye?

Now, I know some of you will say "oh well where is the full unedited video. Why didn't he upload that? It MUST be fake then."

Well, here you go then:

And for MUCH of the time you can see curve. Not fisheye. Not some act of perspective. Real, authentic, curvature of the earth.

[Bobby Shafto]

The "curve" most everyone seems to want to look for to distinguish a globe from a flat earth is (I believe) a false quest. Here's why:

When looking from high above either a sphere or a disc, the "horizon" of either transcribes the base of a cone. If the viewpoint is the apex, the angle from horizontal in all directions is a 2D circle, either the circumference of a sphere (or spherical cap) or circumference of a disc (or some smaller circle on that disc).

From the surface of the base, the lateral line is "flat" but it surrounds you in all directions. It "curves" toward you radially as you turn 360°. As you increase height over the base, it'll keep doing that, but you'll start to see the "curve" of that arc of the circle. It's not the "dip" of the horizon left or right because the angle looking down doesn't change. 



Even when you can see the whole of a flat disc or whole of a globe, you still don't know which is a disc and which is a sphere, unless you can determine relief in the z-axis (the same axis as height) or you can gain an oblique angle, in which case the 3D disc will reveal itself while the sphere will be retain symmetry.

The "curve" that matters in distinguishing sphere from flat isn't along the transverse of a horizon. It's the "dip" toward and away from the viewer, not left/right.

The right honorable Samuel Rowbotham didn't understand this either when he incorrectly presumed this should be an attribute of a rotund earth in Experiment 7 of "Earth not a Globe"



Likewise, globe defenders claiming to see the horizon curve from high altitude aren't actually resolving the dispute either. The horizon being straight (or not straight) across the horizontal is not a marker of globe/flat.

Is there anything wrong with that contrary argument?

[juner]

Refrain from posting images without context. It adds nothing to the discussion. Warned.

[Pete Svarrior]

You went out of your way to state many times that the lens wasn't a fish-eye. While this much is obvious (you're clearly responding to an argument about very different kinds of "space" photography, but I'm not very surprised that you'd try to conflate these to make your argument sound "stronger"), you can very clearly see the extent of curvature change within seconds as the camera pans up and down.

You can also see moments at any altitude that share the same extent of curvature - even comparing "just barely off the ground" to "high up in 'space'"!

Gee, oh gee, I wonder why that might be. Since it's clearly not optics, as you so strongly asserted with 0 evidence, it must be that the curvature of the Round Earth physically changes depending on how we look at it.

[Bobby Shafto]

Refrain from posting images without context. It adds nothing to the discussion. Warned.

Sorry. I had a write up that went with that. Don't know what happened or why it didn't post.

I'll edit and add an explanation when I'm on a computer.

(Done 5/1)

[Tumeni]

Plenty o' curvature here. You just need to go a bit higher; somewhere between 180 and 6950km does it ...

[Bobby Shafto]

Plenty o' curvature here.

How do you know that's not a disc?

(See my edited post above. I'm having difficulty getting this point across, but maybe it's because I'm wrong. Open to correction.)

[AATW]

Plenty o' curvature here.

How do you know that's not a disc?

(See my edited post above. I'm having difficulty getting this point across, but maybe it's because I'm wrong. Open to correction.)

I get your point but from the cloud patterns it looks like they are wrapped around a globe. A flat painting can be made to look 3D using perspective in the way it's drawn so it's possible that this is a disc but it gives the appearance of a sphere.

[Tumeni]

How do you know that's not a disc?

The craft was seen by thousands leaving Cape Canaveral going East, two sets of these videos were seen of it passing over Australia in an easterly direction toward the Pacific, with perfect matching between what was seen from this craft and the weather satellite over the Australian region, and witnesses with cameras saw the exit burn, where it left Earth orbit, from the West coast of California.

In the same way that I saw the ISS crossing my sky with 90 minutes between passes; nobody saw this craft changing direction, nor going westward at any time. All footage is entirely consistent with a craft travelling Eastward to get back to where it started from.

[Bobby Shafto]

How do you know that's not a disc?

The craft was seen by thousands leaving Cape Canaveral going East, two sets of these videos were seen of it passing over Australia in an easterly direction toward the Pacific, with perfect matching between what was seen from this craft and the weather satellite over the Australian region, and witnesses with cameras saw the exit burn, where it left Earth orbit, from the West coast of California.

In the same way that I saw the ISS crossing my sky with 90 minutes between passes; nobody saw this craft changing direction, nor going westward at any time. All footage is entirely consistent with a craft travelling Eastward to get back to where it started from.

All reasons other than (or complement to) the “curve,” because that curve is circumference arc - which both circle and sphere possess - and not horizon dip, which a sphere has but not a circle.

[nickrulercreator]

You went out of your way to state many times that the lens wasn't a fish-eye. While this much is obvious (you're clearly responding to an argument about very different kinds of "space" photography, but I'm not very surprised that you'd try to conflate these to make your argument sound "stronger"), you can very clearly see the extent of curvature change within seconds as the camera pans up and down.

You can also see moments at any altitude that share the same extent of curvature - even comparing "just barely off the ground" to "high up in 'space'"!

Gee, oh gee, I wonder why that might be. Since it's clearly not optics, as you so strongly asserted with 0 evidence, it must be that the curvature of the Round Earth physically changes depending on how we look at it.

Would you mind providing a screenshot of this? Some evidence? Perhaps a timestamp even.

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

[Bobby Shafto]

...you can very clearly see the extent of curvature change within seconds as the camera pans up and down...

This is 2D "curve", like the curve of a circle.

It's the 3D "curve" that we want to detect, and that is the "curve" way/toward the viewer in all azimuths. You can't see that curve in 2D. You need to infer it from other phenomenon or from multiple perspectives (stereoscopic) or other clues, like shadow, relief, etc.

The curve of a circle (such an an arc on the circumference of a spherical cap or that of a flat disc) is different and doesn't help distinguish between flat and sphere.




-----------

Edit: I had tried to initiate this point with a new topic titled "Lateral Curvature," but it didn't generate any discussion. If a moderator would like to delete that topic or move it to an archive, I won't complain. This topic is fine for arguing my point.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?

[jcks]

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?

So it's impossible to take a picture/video of the flat earth because it will always look like a globe?

If that's the case what defining feature from a shot like this would prove a flat earth? I've yet to see any ice walls in experiments like this.

[Spycrab]

You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence...

Could you perhaps enlighten us with the mechanics behind these cameras' lies? Maybe they're all being baid off by nasa.

[nickrulercreator]

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?

Yes, I know that ANY lens will, but what I'm saying is that he did not use a wide-angle lens. If he did, there'd be extreme exaggeration. His lens had a very, very small fisheye effect. This can be known by looking at the horizon at the beginning of the video. There is almost no curvature unless the horizon is at the extremes of the frame. At the point of the video where the balloon pops, theres curve no matter where the frame is.

I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.

[Pete Svarrior]

I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.

Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Wait, how does the garlic bread help the experiment design? It just seems like something you'd do to make the test more (pardon the pun) digestible and spreadable to the young "meme" culture. You're highlighting information that emphasizes an easy, wide-spread message over the rigors of the scientific method.

This isn't science, it's propaganda.

[Tumeni]

I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.

Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.

They would only differ if someone had cropped the image between shooting and display, surely?

[nickrulercreator]

I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.

Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.

Well, it's not unreliable because it find the middle of the video frame.

We'd have to know if Tom cropped the video to determine where the real center is, then. I'm doubting he cropped it though.