[Tumeni]

In the attached diagram (I hope it attaches) it shows the earth (blue circle) and astronaut (at position 'A', and the astronauts line of vision to the earth (the red arrow). The stick person is what I would presume the astronaut would see if they zoomed in on a person at or near to the equator. They would appear to be sticking out at right angles to the earth. Can anyone explain why this would not be the case? I understand the global earth has no top or bottom or sides. But the astronaut surely wouldn't see the person standing vertically - could they? Would they?

If the astronaut were vertically aligned with the letter, on a theoretically vertical N-S axis, then this WOULD be the case. I can't fathom why you're asking anyone to explain why it would not be.

In theory, if the astronaut had a zoom capability to this extent, the guy on Earth WOULD be aligned that way.

If you place an analogue clock on your wall, and orient it in the standard manner - 12 at the top, 3 to the right, 6 at bottom, 9 to the left. then 3 and 9 will ONLY be in their correct place if you remain upright, won't they? If you stand on your head, 3 will be left and 9 right. If you lie on the floor with your head to left or right, then 3 and 9 will be top/bottom in your field of view. 

[SimonC]

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.
But why does such a picture not exist. Why not take a zoomed in photo from a craft in space (from or near to the astronaut location/angle on above diagram) of a mountain range close to the equator. Surely the technology exists. Would it really show the peaks of the mountains sticking out at right angles to the earth?

[Tumeni]

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth. But why does such a picture not exist. Why not take a zoomed in photo from a craft in space (from or near to the astronaut location/angle on above diagram) of a mountain range close to the equator. Surely the technology exists. Would it really show the peaks of the mountains sticking out at right angles to the earth?

You've answered your own question already;

To the extent that if it could be zoomed in enough

Merely saying "Surely the technology exists." does not actually make it so.

The person on the outer rim of the Earth, when viewed from a point in space, would not only be farther away from the camera than any other point on the surface, but the amount of atmosphere that the camera would need to find its way through would at its greatest. Besides which, why, having actually launched a craft into space, having presumably placed it in a stable orbit around Earth, for which the base requirement is to know the shape of the Earth, would anyone operating the space craft want to indulge you on this? What reason would you give to justify it as a worthwhile use of time and payload?

That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

Already done by other means. Hundreds of years of cartography and mapmaking. 60+ years of orbital space flight. One cannot have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere to orbit around. etc. etc.

[Tumeni]

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

[SimonC]

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet? Why does no such picture exist? Ever thought of that? The lack of such, what one can only consider as, simple evidence speaks volumes. It would be the mother of all photographs - forget the 'marble earth' pic. This would surpass it. It would look so 'unreal'. But it isnt ever going to exist.

[SimonC]

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

[Tumeni]

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example?

You answered that yourself. Read my first reply from the last 15 mins or so.

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet?

A right angle is 90 degrees. The person, if standing vertically, would be aligned with a plumb line, which if continued downward, would pass through the Earth's centre. Any 90 degree angle formed by another line in relation to this would be totally arbitrary

[SteelyBob]

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

Not really clear where you’re going with this one. There are loads of photos available - the key word you need is ‘oblique’, meaning side on, as opposed to the normal plan form shots. A quick google will reveal loads of shots. Here’s a couple:

https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1

https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/

The issue is that you are just going to cry ‘fake’ at anything that refutes your views. The orientation thing seems a bit of a red herring - you can rotate any photo, any which way you choose. Most of the oblique shots that I’ve seen have been orientated gravity-down, but even if they weren’t, you would presumably just say they were faked, right?

[SimonC]

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example?

You answered that yourself. Read my first reply from the last 15 mins or so.

So if there was a person standing on top of the mountain peak they could be seen at right angles to the planet?

A right angle is 90 degrees. The person, if standing vertically, would be aligned with a plumb line, which if continued downward, would pass through the Earth's centre. Any 90 degree angle formed by another line in relation to this would be totally arbitrary

I dont think you understood fully what i was getting at. Probably my fault. Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

[SimonC]

I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

Not really clear where you’re going with this one. There are loads of photos available - the key word you need is ‘oblique’, meaning side on, as opposed to the normal plan form shots. A quick google will reveal loads of shots. Here’s a couple:

https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1

https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/

The issue is that you are just going to cry ‘fake’ at anything that refutes your views. The orientation thing seems a bit of a red herring - you can rotate any photo, any which way you choose. Most of the oblique shots that I’ve seen have been orientated gravity-down, but even if they weren’t, you would presumably just say they were faked, right?

Nice pics but they are taken side on - not from the location i suggested.

[Tumeni]

Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

Yup, like the example I gave above in text. You can see the land masses, why would you think anyone on those land masses is not vertically aligned? Here's the picture to show it

[Tumeni]

Nice pics but they are taken side on - not from the location i suggested.

....and as I said, you have already stated in your own words why that is either impossible or at least extraordinarily difficult.

[SimonC]

Change the 'stick' person in my diagram for a mountain range near the equator and take a pic of it from a point many many miles directly 'above it'. I use the word 'above' to illustrate where I mean (as i know most people think the earth does not have a top or bottom). Looking 'down' on the mountain range the peaks will stick out of the globe as the stick person does. Will they not? And if they did wouldnt it make a fantastic picture? Especially with a mountaineer standing on the peak looking like they are floating.

[SimonC]

Yes the person on the equator will be standing upright with their feet pointing to the centre of the earth. But when viewed from a point in space above or directly above the globe (above the north pole for example) they will look, to the observer like they are sticking out from the earth at right angles to it as in my diagram.

Yup, like the example I gave above in text. You can see the land masses, why would you think anyone on those land masses is not vertically aligned? Here's the picture to show it

I didnt say they would be vertically alighned but if those people you had drawn on that globe were real and a real photo was taken of them from that same side view would they appear to lean/tilt as in your image?

[Tumeni]

Change the 'stick' person in my diagram for a mountain range near the equator and take a pic of it from a point many many miles directly 'above it'. I use the word 'above' to illustrate where I mean (as i know most people think the earth does not have a top or bottom). Looking 'down' on the mountain range the peaks will stick out of the globe as the stick person does. Will they not? And if they did wouldnt it make a fantastic picture? Especially with a mountaineer standing on the peak looking like they are floating.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not really sure what you're asking for. If the photographer was directly above the stick person in both your diagram and my photo, he would not appear as shown. You would see the top of his head. He's shown from head to foot because what you're asking for IS the side view of him, not the view from above.

In my illustration with the two stick men, the camera is above mountains in the upper half of South America, but the mountains in Alaska/Canada and/or Africa are being viewed from the side, not from above

I didnt say they would be vertically aligned but if those people you had drawn on that globe were real and a real photo was taken of them from that same side view would they appear to lean/tilt as in your image?

Yes. Why do you think they would not (if, indeed, that's what you think - it's a struggle to tease that out of you)?

If someone stands upright, they are vertically aligned with respect to the land mass below them, are they not?

[AATW]

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

[SimonC]

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

[SteelyBob]

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

[Tumeni]

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

Is there such a thing as a 3-dimensional photo?

The issue is not whether or not the blue marbles have been assembled from subsidiary photos, or whatever. We're proceeding on the explicit presumption/assumption that that the Earth is a perfect sphere. From reply #56, as I recall.

Yes, reply #56

Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere. ...

The blue marbles are being used to illustrate the mechanics, the geometry of what we're talking about, following your questions, and on the explicit presumption/assumption quoted above. It does not matter, for the purposes of such, what they have been derived from. They're merely being used to illustrate.

[SimonC]

I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.