[Treep Ravisarras]

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

In other topic you have difficulty seeing curve, now you have no difficulty seeing curve. For me actually other way around. Previously saw curve easily. Now I have difficulty seeing curve.

Anyway, so that we can look a bit closer here some stills from movie. So we can see and observe what we can gain from our knowledge. After all we need to be shown to accept something as truth, so what exactly are we shown here lens effects and all?

Low:	High:
.	.
.	.
Low:	High:

p.s. horizon in same place low and high cancels lens effects or not

[Treep Ravisarras]

In the pictures is definately a curve. Pete saw it too. Not sure what explanation is.

[AATW]

In the pictures is definately a curve. Pete saw it too. Not sure what explanation is.

Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher.

But don't worry, the Wiki has you covered, bro

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

[Round Eyes]

How do you know that's not a disc?

The craft was seen by thousands leaving Cape Canaveral going East,

I was there and can verify this fact.  incredible launch by the way.  we tracked it for a very long time with a small telescope as well

[nickrulercreator]

Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher.

But don't worry, the Wiki has you covered, bro

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I think one way to debunk this would be doing the flight at sunrise/sunset. If you can fly a balloon right over the terminator line on Earth, you'd still see the curve on Earth on the side lit up, but that shouldn't be possible if the sun was a spotlight. If the sun was a spotlight, you'd see the circle of light curve away from you to the horizon on both sides (around the sun), you wouldn't see the actual horizon curve. I'll try to make an illustration later if I can. Not sure how to describe this any easier.

[nickrulercreator]

Finally drew it. Here's crude representations of what should be seen:



Above is a RE model. The top left illustration is a view (if facing North from directly above) of sunlight hitting Earth, with the arrows representing light. The shaded side is the night side, and the circle on the terminator line is the location of launch of the balloon (or rocket or whatever). The illustration along the bottom is what should be seen from a non-fish eye camera. The horizon, curved, is curved regardless of where the light is. It's curved all around. The terminator line is a straight line. It does not turn relative to the camera.



Above is a FE model. The top left illustration is a view (facing from directly above) of sunlight hitting Earth. The non-shaded area is the light coming from the spotlight sun, while the shaded area is night. The circle on the terminator line is the location of the launch of the balloon. The illustration along the bottom is what should be seen from a non-fish eye camera. The horizon would appear curved only where light is due to the circle curving around the sun, but the terminator would also appear to curve to the right or left, depending on your orientation (the terminator line would encircle the sun). This isn't seen, ever.

I apologize for the not-to-scale, crude representation of the models. I do not know how to do 3D modelling in software, so if someone could (using accurate scales), that would be infinitely helpful.

[AATW]

Some good footage here from the ISS of a sunrise and sunset from there which might be close to what you're talking about.

[nickrulercreator]

Some good footage here from the ISS of a sunrise and sunset from there which might be close to what you're talking about.

This is a great video, thank you. You can clearly see the terminator line is not curving around the sun, but with the curve of the earth and in a straight line.

[SphericalEarther]

I made this image for comparison of curvature.


Mostly this video just shows that there is curvature, we can see curvature, which goes against the core princible of flat earth 'the horizon doesn't curve'.

The only thing done to the images is changing the color levels to create lines in the gradient. This easily shows the transition and curve of the gradient (if any), and can easily be done in free image editing software, such as Paint.NET which is used here.

[Dr David Thork]

I made this image for comparison of curvature.


Mostly this video just shows that there is curvature, we can see curvature, which goes against the core princible of flat earth 'the horizon doesn't curve'.

The only thing done to the images is changing the color levels to create lines in the gradient. This easily shows the transition and curve of the gradient (if any), and can easily be done in free image editing software, such as Paint.NET which is used here.

Of course the horizon curves. The horizon wraps around you in a large circle 360 degrees. If the horizon was dead straight you'd have to be able to see further away from you at 45 degrees than you would looking straight ahead and there would be no horizon behind you ... it would be parallel to you. Does the earth fall away at the edges? Your garlic bread doesn't convince me that it does. You want ball like curvature, not dish like curvature.

[Dr David Thork]

I'll make it simpler.

Imagine the earth was a flat square ... what shape is the horizon?


Something like this? With a straight horizon?

Now imagine it is a flat disc. Still got a perfectly straight horizon?


Nope.

Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".

Here is me looking out over the edge of a dinner plate.


Its not a ball, is it? But it has a horizon, a curved one.

[SphericalEarther]

Of course the horizon curves, you idiot. The horizon wraps around you in a large circle 360 degrees. If the horizon was dead straight you'd have to be able to see further away from you at 45 degrees than you would looking straight ahead and there would be no horizon behind you ... it would be parallel to you. Does the earth fall away at the edges? Your garlic bread doesn't convince me that it does. You want ball like curvature, not dish like curvature.

You sure are hostile...

On the ground at sea level, the amount of curvature we would see is not noticeable due to the size of the earth. The horizon would be basically flat, no matter which direction you are looking. This is one of the primary arguments of the flat earth that the horizon is always at eye-level and the horizon is flat (exactly as we see it when viewed at sea level). This observation holds true on both the flat and globe earth, yet when rising to extreme heights, we expect a drop in the horizon and a visible curvature on the horizon on a globe earth, which should not be there on a flat earth.

We can accurately predict and simulate the amount of curvature we would expect on a globe earth at any given altitude, and we can actively observe that the predictions adhere to reality.
Meanwhile, the flat earth can predict nothing, it is impossible to simulate, math doesn't work with it, you need to invent new methods for perspective and ignore common sense in regards to observations, you can't make a proper map, or even a concept model which can explain the stars clockwise rotation in the south without making a whole new model only used in this single case.

I'll make it simpler.

Imagine the earth was a flat square ... what shape is the horizon?


Something like this? With a straight horizon?

Now imagine it is a flat disc. Still got a perfectly straight horizon?


Nope.

Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".

Here is me looking out over the edge of a dinner plate.


Its not a ball, is it? But it has a horizon, a curved one.

If you scale your imagery to the size of earth, you would be hundreds of kilometers above the earth. If however you were straight above the surface on the gigantic earth, you would see a flat line.
Besides, in both your examples, you are looking down towards the horizon, which also indicates that the horizon is not eye-level in your examples, also a clear violation of the FE 'the horizon is always at eye-level'.

The idea of this topic is to disprove one of the primary beliefs in the FE, that the horizon is always flat.
Since you already seem to believe that the horizon should curve due to geometry, this topic isn't meant to persuade you.

[Dr David Thork]

On the ground at sea level, the amount of curvature we would see is not noticeable due to the size of the earth. The horizon would be basically flat, no matter which direction you are looking.

Why would you expect to see further to your left or right than you can straight ahead?



The horizon has to curve if you can always see the same distance in every direction. This is pretty basic geometry. There is no 'basically flat'.

[SphericalEarther]

On the ground at sea level, the amount of curvature we would see is not noticeable due to the size of the earth. The horizon would be basically flat, no matter which direction you are looking.

Why would you expect to see further to your left or right than you can straight ahead?



The horizon has to curve if you can always see the same distance in every direction. This is pretty basic geometry. There is no 'basically flat'.

False.

You are trying to apply a top-down view to show perspective.
Just like your previous images showed a very high position of the camera/eye, this will of course not show a flat line when looking down on it.

Real life demonstration example:
If you have a hoola-hoop, hold it horizontally, and place your eye inside the hoop at the same level as the hoop, you will see a completely flat line.
If you move your sight further up, then of course you will see curve, but if you compare your altitude to the hoops, and scale that to the giant earth, you will see how far up we need to be to properly see curvature.
Comparing our height above the earth, to the height you would be over the hoola hoop, would probably be 1 millimeter up, resulting in seeing a 'basically flat' line from the hoola hoop.

This is basic geometry and perspective. Easily calculated, simulated and observed.

I can easily show this too you with 3D models, but I do not have time for that today.

[edby]

Real life demonstration example:
If you have a hoola-hoop, hold it horizontally, and place your eye inside the hoop at the same level as the hoop, you will see a completely flat line.
If you move your sight further up, then of course you will see curve, but if you compare your altitude to the hoops, and scale that to the giant earth, you will see how far up we need to be to properly see curvature.

Or take a picture of Thork's plate, but as a fly would see it. Looks dead straight.

[AATW]

Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".

You say that.
You get quite a lot of lunatics saying "the horizon looks flat and therefore the earth must be flat"...

[iamcpc]

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.

I saw a video of Thanos fighting the Avengers. Does not make it real.

[nickrulercreator]

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.

I saw a video of Thanos fighting the Avengers. Does not make it real.

Then what about this video is fake, if it is? Everyone knows Thanos and the Avengers aren't real.

This isn't the same. Numerous independent observers have done the same thing and seen similar results (curve). Why should this, or any, be fake?

[nickrulercreator]

I'll make it simpler.

Imagine the earth was a flat square ... what shape is the horizon?


Something like this? With a straight horizon?

Now imagine it is a flat disc. Still got a perfectly straight horizon?


Nope.

Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".

Here is me looking out over the edge of a dinner plate.


Its not a ball, is it? But it has a horizon, a curved one.

This is only true if you do this near the center of the spotlight from the sun. Otherwise the curve around you will appear much different depending on where you look. It won't appear as an equal, continuous curve as should be seen on a spherical Earth (and as seen in reality).

[Treep Ravisarras]

Here is me looking out over the edge of a dinner plate.

I agree with the flat disc principle, but you lost me there. Are you saying that in the garlic video we are looking at the edge of the earth? The curvature is the shape of the flat disc, the end of earth?

I never thought of it that way. Perhaps we should get a large telescope up there on a balloon. My wish is to see pictures of the ice wall once in a lifetime.