Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Where can we see this effect in reality?Anywhere there is a straight line slightly above (or below for that matter) that you can walk up close to and look left or right along it's length.
Tom, there is no such "wide angle setting". In any perspective view you increase the field of view from the eyes perspective by getting closer to the objects so the head has to be turned. I did exactly what you say I should have done. I moved under and closer to the moon. The video clearly shows that things are lined up. We all know that. Nobody is saying they don't. What we are talking about is how one perceives them to not line up. My video shows how objects that are lined up can appear to not line up when we don't have reference for depth.What would happen in the view you created if my red line were there connecting the sun to the moon? It would bend!I found the problem here Tom. What you haven't figured out, is that the viewing distance to the moon is quite short compared to the distance from the moon to the sun. We are viewing it from that "up close" viewpoint that is used in the 3d model video Flatout made.
You clearly are trying to hand wave whatever effect you applied, or was inadvertently applied on a preset filter, away. In your original video you even bring up the words "wide angle" and "Field of View" when you "zoom in".
The person in the video in the OP did not need to zoom into the moon and change his "wide angle" view of the moon to see that it was not lined up with the sun. Shame on you.
In Flatout's first video he clearly mentions changing the wide angle field of view when he zooms in. When did the man in the video in the op zoom in and change his wide angle view?
A more accurate action would be to simply take his camera near the moon and see if it lined up with the sun. Flatout does not do this, because he knows that doing so would be detrimental to his position.
Your accusation of deceit is duly noted.
just went out and did the string experiment for the first time. works beautifully.
you should go out and do it this morning, tom. if you're in the pacific time zone, then you should have a good view of both the sun and moon for the next 3-4 hours or so.A planetarium is just a movie theater. They don't project the movies inside cubes because the corners are ugly.
what do you mean by "the corners are ugly"?
Corners are so ugly that they do not even allow them in regular movie theaters......oh wait......I have never seen a regular movie theater with a dome for a screen. Never mind.
What would happen in the view you created if my red line were there connecting the sun to the moon? It would bend!I found the problem here Tom. What you haven't figured out, is that the viewing distance to the moon is quite short compared to the distance from the moon to the sun. We are viewing it from that "up close" viewpoint that is used in the 3d model video Flatout made.
You clearly are trying to hand wave whatever effect you applied, or was inadvertently applied on a preset filter, away. In your original video you even bring up the words "wide angle" and "Field of View" when you "zoom in".
The person in the video in the OP did not need to zoom into the moon and change his "wide angle" view of the moon to see that it was not lined up with the sun. Shame on you.
QuoteIn the Muddy Colors blog link the observation this blogger makes in the sky is as so:
Accompanied with the following text you ignored:
"Stretch this image out left to right until it encompasses about 180° and you'll get the picture. You would have to turn your head to look from impending sunrise to setting moon:"
This is rather dishonest of you Tom.
why do planetariums choose a spherical shape? why not project their images onto the inside of a cube or pyramid?
or, put another way: why is field of view measured in degrees? why do we use angles to describe that quantity?
that's literally exactly how reality appears to us.
why do planetariums choose a spherical shape? why not project their images onto the inside of a cube or pyramid?
or, put another way: why is field of view measured in degrees? why do we use angles to describe that quantity?
He is a public speaker for the president who made a comment that, while you can see his underlying meaning, is still vague enough to leave some doubt as to exactly what he meant. Basically, he sucks at his job.
When you pan to the left and right it looks like the moon and sun are warping around an inverted sphere.
exactly.
Tom, zooming in Rhinoceros perspective view is the same a positioning the camera closer. I use the software professionally. I've designed countless airplane parts for composite fabrication with it. You don't know what you are talking about.Nothing is bent, Tom. There is no fisheye effect turned on.
There is clearly something screwy with the FOV. When you pan to the left and right it looks like the moon and sun are warping around an inverted sphere.
Why is it that in your original video that you had to "zoom in" after this scene to get the desired effect rather than simply place your camera closer to the moon? Simply placing your camera next to the moon would be the simplest thing to do, and would more accurately represent the earth-sun-moon system.
Whatever you did there with the FOV is clearly unnatural. In the beforehand scene we clearly see that the moon is pointing at the sun, which I illustrated with a red line. If you take a magnifying glass to the moon in my image and follow the path to the sun it clearly makes a straight line.
We don't have zoom-in pincushion eyesight, or whatever inexplicable thing you did there to achieve your effect, so why are you trying to pass it off as reality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_differenceThe criticism by the Social Justice Warriors on the news is entirely manufactured. Haven't you realized that yet?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/13/gop-rep-calls-for-spicers-resignation-after-hitler-comments.html
entirely manufactured.
What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all.
the criticism he's receiving from both sides of the isle indicates otherwise.
i feel bad for him precisely because i don't think he at all meant to diminish the holocaust, but it's pretty undeniable that it was an absurdly ignorant thing to say.
Reporter: Hey Sean, what do you think about Syrian chemical warfare?
Spicer: Well, we didn't use chemical weapons in WWII, and even Hitler didn't use them.
Nothing is bent, Tom. There is no fisheye effect turned on.
Wow, we are talking about widely observed and recorded information:.
That's not really true, Tom, because you are part of the vast minority on this issue.
Fortunately, many Kings and Queens and Presidents have already done all of the work for you when they and their subjects traveled the world over the past several millenia.
And yet the calculators work!
You are correct about the bipolar map. It is the same as the azimuthal projection used by most flat earthers, but instead of being centered on the north pole, it is centered on the equator at the point it intersects the prime meridian. You often refer to the bipolar flat earth, and I believe you also refer to this map on this forum. What exactly are you referring to when you mention the bipolar flat earth on this forum, if not this map?
