21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 25, 2019, 06:01:08 PM »

Ah, I think you're reading far too much into what I said, perhaps making assumptions about my mindset due to your association with "the opposite tribe"?

Let's look at my quote once again, keeping your emphasis: "No, the nice bot lady saying it's totally happening does not make it sound likely."

I maintain that what I said is true: that source alone does not make Tumeni's argument sound likely.

It follows that I believe we shouldn't be using bad sources here. It does not follow that bad source => information is unequivocally false.

I have no strong position on Boston Dynamics, and my default stance would be not to assume foul play unless strong evidence was presented. So far, no strong evidence has been presented.

Excellent. I agree with this completely. I was wondering if perhaps I wasn't reading your intent properly.
I agree that the link presented was weak. I also stand by my statement that the information presented in the link was easily corroborated with better links.

22

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 25, 2019, 04:15:14 PM »

Well, what a coincidence. Boston Dynamics prepares to launch first commercial dog ...

Jesus, have we descended to the level of copy-pasting links to automatically generated youtube "news" stories with a text-to-speech "newsreader"?

No, the nice bot lady saying it's totally happening does not make it sound likely.

This is kind of my point once more. Let's investigate.
1) Tumeni links a video claiming Boston Dynamics is planning a commercial release.
2) Pete finds this link dubious. (I agree. It's weak.)
3) At this point we could...
  a) Look for more information
  b) Attack the quality of the link and reject the veracity of the claim.

I'll give you a moment.

Ok... so what happens if we take just 5 minutes to try out option a)?
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/5/18653710/boston-dynamics-first-commercial-robot-spot-demo-amazon-remars-conference-marc-raibert
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/11/boston-dynamics-will-start-selling-its-dog-like-spotmini-robot-in-2019/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/18/boston-dynamics-latest-video-shows-herd-robotic-dogs-hauling-massive-truck-with-ease/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1a80d33b9a38
https://bgr.com/2019/06/05/boston-dynamics-robot-spot-going-on-sale/
https://www.wired.com/story/what-boston-dynamics-rolling-handle-robot-really-means/

Interesting, right?

What's the take-away? Well Tumeni's video link was IMO pretty crappy. Text-to-speech? Seriously?
But does that make the claim false? No.

So I agree with Pete that it's a poor link. Sure. But then Pete goes on with this...
"No, the nice bot lady saying it's totally happening does not make it sound likely." (emphasis mine)

Criticizing the video link is fair. Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sure sounds to me like Pete is discounting the facts based on the quality of the video WITHOUT even checking for corroborating evidence one way or the other.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: June 25, 2019, 04:59:05 AM »

Hey this is the Flat Earth Society, so if you want to believe it's flat, I won't tell you different.
On the other hand, when you're ready to learn how perspective works, I'm here for you.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: June 25, 2019, 04:28:16 AM »

Tonight I had to go out to the store. It was right around 8pm, and the Sun was setting. I looked up, and there was Mt. Wilson, already in shadow. Right above the mountain, the clouds were still lit. The clouds over Mt. Wilson were pinkish this evening. Out to the West, the clouds were bright yellow and under-lit.

After shopping, I came back out, and the Sun was fully set. And yet, some of the clouds were still bright pink. Not all of them - just some. The HIGH clouds were still lit, but the ones below them were dark. It was beautiful and amazing. Right there in the evening sky was all the evidence you should ever need. The clouds nearest me were dark, the clouds higher up were bright, and the Sun was hidden behind the horizon.

I was struck by just how easy it is to go out and see these things for yourself. All you have to do is look.

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: June 24, 2019, 04:22:15 PM »

The moderators didn't appreciate my previous response, so I'll post it again in long form.
proponent had posted, "In the very far north, there are mountains much higher than Mount Qomolangma. They go round the world, and the highest one is as high as the sun.In the center of the world, there is a very tall mountain, which is twice as high as the sun.The world is bigger than you think. What happens when the sun goes around the center of the world, to the north, when the mountains block out the sun."

My original response was 100% on topic and extremely concise. I stand by it. Allow me to elaborate.

proponent, your post is interesting (cool), but I do not consider this to be factual (it's a story). I have never heard of a mountain twice as high as the Sun. That would be truly incredible. I believe I would require some evidence of that, but so far you haven't provided anything that I would count as evidence. My intuition tells me that having a deeper, rational discussion with you on this topic would likely be fruitless. Therefore, I am going to wish you well, and disengage semi-politely. I choose not to use any profanity or disparage you directly, but I wish to imply that I consider this line of reasoning to be unsound. I want to make it clear to you that while I respect you as a person, I do not think your logical reasoning techniques are valid (Bro).

As always, if you have an actual question that you'd like an actual answer to, I would be happy to answer it. If you want to delve into fantasy land, enjoy the ride, but I cannot help you there.

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: June 24, 2019, 05:28:43 AM »

I cannot say I fully understand you.
I thought you were asking about clouds lit from underneath. It is commonly said that this is only possible on a globe, and not possible on a flat Earth.
Here's a time-lapse of one
https://dissolve.com/video/Timelapse-footage-mountain-wave-clouds-lit-below-royalty-free-stock-video-footage/001-D30-27-072
Here's one from shutter stock
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/clouds-lit-orange-hole-punch-cloud-1196345539
Here's one from another photographer
https://chrisbriggs.photoshelter.com/image/I0000fYif4D3XCWw

I'm not sure if this is what you're asking for, but here are some timelapses of sunsets casting shadows on mountains. Watch as the shadow climbs up the mountain. Why is that?
https://www.videoblocks.com/video/time-lapse-of-a-shadow-covering-a-snowy-mountain-peak-during-a-sunset-top-in-austrian-alps-nqahnv6
https://www.videoblocks.com/video/sunset-casting-shadow-on-utah-desert-mountain-bkftzekoliyxmdkib
https://app.nimia.com/video/134967/timelapse-of-evening-glow-amp-casting-shadows-over
And this one is Mt. Everest - the tallest mountain in the world. Ask yourself, what is tall enough to cast a shadow onto Mt. Everest? Doesn't this mean the Sun is somewhere BELOW Mt. Everest? How does that work?
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/89114972/everest-peak-sunset-himalayas-mountains-time-lapse-zoom-4k.html

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: June 23, 2019, 11:29:05 PM »

It's sunset time for me.But the shadows of the eastern clouds are all below. Why?

Depends on where you are, surely? Are you on high ground? At a coast?

<<<<<You may have misunderstood what I said before, because of the translation software.
What I want to tell you is that I've never seen the sun lighting up the bottom of clouds and casting shadows over them at sunset, in any direction.Even when the sun seems to be shining up from the edge of the clouds in the west, the bottom of those clouds is still a dark shadow state.
What does it matter where I am? Have you seen for yourself a moment when the sun illuminates all the clouds below without darkening them?If so, please show me the photos.If not, isn't there much to say?Right?
I'm just saying things.
------Or I could say, let's say on a mountain top lower than the sun, there's a big table, and nothing covers the bottom of the panel.So at sunrise or sunset, if the surface of the earth is a sphere, and the sun is below the horizon, then there must be a chance for the sun to shine on the bottom of the table, and if it hasn't, then the sun has never been below the horizon.Isn't it?

I did a quick image search... here you go.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 07:11:01 PM »

spherical, I'd like to clarify. I think we are saying the same thing, but language is getting in the way.

The horizon is a circle that is flat and level. That is, if we were to draw the thing and then go up in a spaceship to look at what we drew, we'd see we had drawn a flat, level circle. Every spot on a perfect horizon is at exactly the same actual height relative to the observer.

When the observer views that level circle, it is projected onto an image plane - be it an eyeball or a camera frame. In the image we make in this way, the flat, level circle forms a curve.

Are we on the same page here?

If I may say this simply, the horizon on a sphere should BE a circle. The horizon on a sphere should LOOK LIKE a curve. The higher the observer, the more curved it LOOKS.

Right?

Edit: I came up with another way to describe it that may help...
The horizon is a circle.
That circle is parallel with your local "level".
If you look at the horizon, you are NOT looking "level".
Therefore, the horizon (if you look at it) is a circle that is TILTED compared to your view direction.
The higher you are, the more you need to TILT to look at it, and the more TILTED that circle looks.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 05:13:10 PM »

It seems you guys don't grasp it, do yah?

There is no horizontal curvature on the circled horizon around you, and I am talking about oblate spherical planet.
If it exist, so it would accumulate and go very deep down on your back view, right?
The problem on any optical device is the lens, only expensive lens can give you a very good orthoscopy image.
You need to read https://clickitupanotch.com/lens-distortion/

There is no horizon curvature, except if you go very very high in a way where you have the whole object in front of you, nothing on your back.  In case of Earth planet, "very high" means more than 20 thousands miles up.

Apparently this thread is being diverted to discuss camera pixels accuracy, trying to ignore the original post.

I believe you are mistaken. Yes there IS a horizon curve. I just posted a video showing you that it's there. I also explained how any amount of lens distortion affects the straight-edge in exactly the same way as the horizon. You can then compare the curve of the straight-edge to the curve of the horizon to see what the true curve of the horizon is. It's curved, and if you'd care to do the math, it matches amazingly well.

Am I misunderstanding you here? Let me try to lay out some logical flow in case we're not communicating effectively.

1) Imagine that the horizon is a circle equally distant in all directions.
2) That circle is level. It is perpendicular to the direction of the pull of gravity.
3) You are in the center of that circle.
4) That circle is below eye-level very slightly.
Right? We're all on the same page so far?
5) Let's take that "below eye-level" to the extreme and explore what that would cause. Use the hula hoop visualization. Stand in the middle of a hula hoop and take a photo of the front of it. The front of the hoop is dead center in your frame. To the right, the hula hoop exits the frame lower than that. To the left, the hula hoop exits the frame lower as well. You're looking down on a circle, so of course it looks curved.
6) Now slowly raise that hula hoop up towards eye level. At what point does that curve finally become a straight line?
7) It's a straight line when it's at eye level, and it's a curve on the floor. How does it go from one to the other?
There won't be any discontinuity. It's going to smoothly transition becoming less and less curved as you raise it until it finally hits perfectly straight at exactly eye level.

Right?

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 01:17:10 AM »

I would disagree Tom. That is the very point of the straight edges. Notice how straight they remain in comparison to the amazingly smooth curve of the horizon.
You've labeled them as "STRAIGHT(ISH)". Do you not see the striking contrast?

The control in the experiment is supposed to remain straight. However, it is not straight. This is a demonstration of the presence of distortion in the camera.

If you go through that Metabunk thread Mick West explains that the camera can have different amounts of distortion in different spots, and that it can manifest unpredictably.

You are not addressing the images shown. You are trying to suggest that because the lens has distortion, any photo from it cannot be used. This is not fair. Any distortion that affects the horizon affects the beam in exactly the same way. That's why the beam is there. Rory (the author of the video) goes to some lengths to take images of a grid pattern to identify what sort of distortion his camera has. He also shows how this type of test is confounded by image stabilization, and how that is not relevant to these images shown here. I have not provided links for that because it isn't important. The contrast between the beam and the horizon is undeniable.

You cannot throw out this result based on lens distortion. Lens distortion can be measured and accounted for. As has been done here.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 21, 2019, 12:55:11 AM »

I would disagree Tom. That is the very point of the straight edges. Notice how straight they remain in comparison to the amazingly smooth curve of the horizon.
You've labeled them as "STRAIGHT(ISH)". Do you not see the striking contrast?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 20, 2019, 10:07:45 PM »

Actually, I'm going to nitpick here a bit. (Big surprise, right?)
The horizon looks perfectly flat to the naked eye... yes! You can go pretty high, and it'll still look flat... yes!
But just because it LOOKS flat, that doesn't mean it's perfectly flat. What if you had an instrument more sensitive than the naked eye? Like... a digital camera. Yup. All it takes is a digital camera. You can count pixels on the final image and BAM! It ain't flat afterall. A better way to visualize this (rather than counting raw pixels) is to compress the image... to exaggerate the curvature. (Not to CREATE the curvature, but to exaggerate any curvature that exists.)
Here's a fairly simple demonstration:

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 20, 2019, 05:40:16 AM »

The part that bugs me is the jumping straight into the speculation and accusation.

You mean having the audacity to ask the question? To dare use a question mark in my OP? To even contemplate whether something that seems extraordinary might not be all that meets the eye? You've come to the wrong site, buddy.

Consider... perhaps that's why I came to this site?

But I DO think I've overstated my position on this. Please allow me to soften it.

You saw something fishy. It's fishy, so I do not fault you. It is perfectly reasonable to come to a place like this and say something like, "Hey guys, this looks fishy. What do you think?" I do not fault you for this.

So what's my gripe? My gripe is how you transitioned from, "Is this fishy?" to defending a claim that it was fishy. It really wasn't hard to show it's not very fishy, but you don't seem to have looked for that information. You settled into a defensive position right away.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The horizon isn't a straight line. Stop saying it's a line.

« on: June 20, 2019, 04:54:32 AM »

I would disagree with your analysis of the horizon on a flat Earth. I think you've got a good handle on the globe version.

Here is my video on the flat Earth horizon. I don't much go into the shape of it, but I do go into the dip angle.


This video is focused more on the argument that "the horizon rises to eye level," but the argument that "the horizon is straight" is closely related.

Before even discussing how to do the math to work out the exact shape of it, there is something that I'd like to challenge first. This is something that FEs often cite, but I'm not certain that it's valid. I think this needs to be established clearly before we accept it as a premise:
"If this Earth is flat, your horizon is a circle. Its diameter is determined entirely by your height and how much the atmosphere scatters light."

I have a few points related to that which I would like to dig into before I accept this:
1) I've seen haze, and I've seen crisp horizons. They don't look the same.
2) I've seen the sun passing behind a crisp horizon. The sunset is at least thousands of miles away on anyone's model, so doesn't this mean that I can see thousands of miles?

It is my conclusion based on the above that on a flat Earth there should be exceptionally clear days where we should be able to see mountains at least as far away as the sunset. (For this discussion, we can set aside the conundrum of how the Sun is there in the first place.)

What do you think?

35

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 19, 2019, 03:03:21 PM »

It's not unreasonable to imagine that a company would fake videos of their products in order to try to raise capital. Try to convince a bunch of investors that you're way farther along than you really are. There have been cases of fraud like that in recent years.

I think it's a bit unreasonable. Yes, I'm sure they are showing the robots in their best light and cutting out the times they fall on their arses (do robots have arses?)
But it's quite a leap to assert that the whole video is fake or composite...I think that mindset is interesting.
No actual evidence of fakery has been provided. Just a vague assertion that it "looks fake". What does that mean? That's completely subjective. On what basis is that being claimed? Where's the evidence?
This is my issue with the people claiming that space travel/the moon landings are fake. It's always people who clearly have no understanding of the subject and no qualifications or experience in photo/video editing or effects. They just make vague assertions that it "looks fake".

Boston Dynamics do seem to have some impressive kit and they clearly haven't seen any of the Terminator documentaries, but I suspect the tech they show off in their videos is nowhere near ready for commercial use, let along in people's homes. The robot butler is still a pipe dream for now.

I argue that it is not unreasonable to imagine a company faking stuff. It would be foolish to discount the idea without research. Google "Theranos" for a recent example of this.
That said, I agree with the rest. It is one thing to imagine wrongdoing. The correct action would be to look into it. The part that bugs me is the jumping straight into the speculation and accusation.

36

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 19, 2019, 08:18:05 AM »

It's not unreasonable to imagine that a company would fake videos of their products in order to try to raise capital. Try to convince a bunch of investors that you're way farther along than you really are. There have been cases of fraud like that in recent years. However, in this case, I think the live stage demos are pretty convincing, don't you agree?

Now, are they making footage that shows their robots in the best possible light? Yep. Are they cutting out all the times the robot totally blew it? For sure. Are they totally fake? Naw.

And now. This is the hard one. How hard did you try to answer this question before arguing about it on the internet? I mean, maybe arguing on the internet is fun all by itself. I suppose so. But if you really want the answer, it's available. I guess what I'm saying is, "Instead of just accusing somebody of lying and faking stuff, maybe spend a few minutes looking for independent verification." Right?

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 19, 2019, 08:07:49 AM »

proponent, do you have access to youtube? Perhaps I could make you a video?

38

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 19, 2019, 08:06:12 AM »

I had a whole long explanation all typed out, but it took so long I was timed out and it's gone.
Not typing it all again.
short version: What does a circle look like if you're right in the center of the circle?
Get a hula hoop and hold it at eye level. Seriously, get a hula hoop and hold it at eye level. Now tell me how it can't be a circle because it looks like a straight line.
It's a hula hoop. It's a circle. Held at eye level, it looks like a straight line from any angle.

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 18, 2019, 10:51:13 PM »

A few weeks ago, I had a good think about the panoramic photo thing. (That's why I used it as an example.) It turns out to be something of a mind bender. We've all seen panoramic 360 degree photos. If the horizon curves (even just a few pixels), how can we take a panoramic photo? Right? That's a good one, honestly. Like say we're up 500 ft above the water on an island. Take a still frame. If you blow it up, you'll see a few pixels of curvature in that single frame. So now take a panoramic photo. How can that work?

Give THAT some thought.

(Don't worry. It totally still works. It's just not as trivial as most of these questions are.)

40

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 18, 2019, 04:18:34 PM »

Dear proponent,
Let me be extremely clear. I do not understand you. You use certain words incorrectly, but it is clear from your pattern that you don't realize this. In order for us to understand you, please DEFINE THESE WORDS:
"sea line"
"radian"

I THINK "sea line" means horizon. The line between the ocean and the sky. Is that correct?
My best guess is that "radian" means curve. Like when you say, "it's a small radian," you mean "it isn't perfectly straight." Is that right?

If I may attempt to rephrase your question based on my best guesses about what you mean... please tell me is this what you are trying to ask?

If I look out over the ocean, the horizon is a perfectly straight line. The horizon is flat and level. The REs tell me that the horizon is slightly curved, but it looks very flat to me. If it WERE curved, that would mean the edges are slightly lower than the middle. If so, then as I turn in a circle, the horizon must dip lower in the back and raise up again as I come all the way around. It doesn't do that.
I will explain this by making a panoramic photo. Look North at the horizon and take a photo. Now turn East 10 degrees and take another. Go all the way around taking photos every 10 degrees. Now print those photos out and try to line them up. If the horizon were truly curved, we could not line those photos up along a straight line - it would have to curve.

How's that? Is that what you're trying to talk about?

The classic example of this is an orange slice. Imagine an ant standing on an orange. The ant cannot see all the way around the orange. Let's say the ant can see 1 cm in front of him on the orange - because the orange is curved. He can also see 1 cm to the right, 1 cm to the left, and 1 cm behind. Draw a circle on the orange 1 cm in radius (2 cm diameter) with the ant at the center. This line you just drew is the ant's horizon. Now slice the orange right through the line you drew. That slice you just made is everything the ant can see. Look at that shape from different angles to understand exactly what we're talking about.

Is that what we're talking about?