The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Niki4To on July 18, 2018, 03:42:37 PM
-
The same (round earth?..) experience to all of the passengers....
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lfb34 (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lfb34)
I think people wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the promised space excursions if they have monitors instead genuine windows.
-
I was wondering how they were going to be able to show a round earth to the upcoming space passengers.
This will do it. Wide angle lens video "windows".
-
Marketing bullshit.
The guy says eliminating windows will allow aircraft to fly higher and faster.
So, eliminating windows changes the speed of sound does it? It changes the efficiency of jet engines does it?
Its absolute codswallop. Its his way of saying "we have a gimmick, and you'll think its the wave of the future". How fast does he think jets will go? Concorde had windows. Economically unviable. Make the boom, get the ban over land.
-
They could put wide angle lens with the excuse of seeing more of the Earth, but they definitively should give a turn around the Earth to prove it is round.
Anyway, the sole idea of having monitors is rendering the whole space travel idea doubtful. If they have real windows, it would be nearly impossible to fake the views of the Earth. But with monitors it is extremely easy to fake Round or Square Earth. And personally I would not pay for this more than 50 bugs. Because they could never take off. They could have me in some centrifuge all the time and show me baloney on the monitors. Even travel to Mars. Why not?! With monitors anything is possible.
Furthermore, the sole act of putting monitors instead windows will prove for me at 90% the FE theory. Because if plastic Tesla car suffered no damage at all in the deep space, they have NO EXCUSE to not put real glass windows on the space travel ships. No excuse other than hiding the real shape of the Earth.
-
And personally I would not pay for this more than 50 bugs.
Hi! We welcome users from far east Asia.
They have basically invented a high tech digital window that costs a lot more than an actual window. Its incredibly stupid.
-
And personally I would not pay for this more than 50 bugs.
Hi! We welcome users from far east Asia.
They have basically invented a high tech digital window that costs a lot more than an actual window. Its incredibly stupid.
Haha, I see it now, it is "bucks". At least you know I am not a bot ....
-
Marketing bullshit.
The guy says eliminating windows will allow aircraft to fly higher and faster.
So, eliminating windows changes the speed of sound does it? It changes the efficiency of jet engines does it?
Its absolute codswallop. Its his way of saying "we have a gimmick, and you'll think its the wave of the future". How fast does he think jets will go? Concorde had windows. Economically unviable. Make the boom, get the ban over land.
From what I understand the claim was that airplanes would be able to fly faster (not that they would go supersonic) and be safer.
You don't think a smoother fuselage will make the aerodynamics better and reduce weak points and therefore could do those things?
-
Marketing bullshit.
The guy says eliminating windows will allow aircraft to fly higher and faster.
So, eliminating windows changes the speed of sound does it? It changes the efficiency of jet engines does it?
Its absolute codswallop. Its his way of saying "we have a gimmick, and you'll think its the wave of the future". How fast does he think jets will go? Concorde had windows. Economically unviable. Make the boom, get the ban over land.
From what I understand the claim was that airplanes would be able to fly faster (not that they would go supersonic) and be safer.
You don't think a smoother fuselage will make the aerodynamics better and reduce weak points and therefore could do those things?
Planes already fly in the trans-sonic zone. They can't go any faster without creating localised supersonic flow over the wings.
Weak points? Don't see many planes breaking up from the windows these days. Not since the Comet.
Smoother ... maybe, but you added a bunch of weight with all the screens and cameras ... I'm guessing that will cancel the fuel saving. The windows are pretty flush.
-
I was wondering how they were going to be able to show a round earth to the upcoming space passengers.
This will do it. Wide angle lens video "windows".
Well, people already got enough experiences seeing through the plane window. I think they are doing it mainly for improving speed or customer experiences rather than showing a round earth. It's a lot of effort and cost.
-
Smoother ... maybe, but you added a bunch of weight with all the screens and cameras ... I'm guessing that will cancel the fuel saving. The windows are pretty flush.
That's a pretty good point, you know.
I can see how a smoother fuselage would be stronger, maybe need less maintenance?
But overall I don't think many people would want to get into a metal tube with no windows.
-
... Because if plastic Tesla car suffered no damage at all in the deep space
You didn't see the Tesla in "deep space". The cameras were on whilst it was in Earth orbit, minimum 190km, max 7000km approx. It was in Earth orbit for barely a couple of hours, and spent one-third to one-half of that time in the dark, on the night side of Earth.
I'm not surprised there was no damage evident in the footage. It hadn't had enough time to get damaged.
-
... Because if plastic Tesla car suffered no damage at all in the deep space
You didn't see the Tesla in "deep space". The cameras were on whilst it was in Earth orbit, minimum 190km, max 7000km approx. It was in Earth orbit for barely a couple of hours, and spent one-third to one-half of that time in the dark, on the night side of Earth.
I'm not surprised there was no damage evident in the footage. It hadn't had enough time to get damaged.
LOL!!!
You are stating the Tesla was an altitude less than that of the ISS yet provided us the footage presented?
-
Well, people already got enough experiences seeing through the plane window.
This is super sad! My future kids asking me: "Daddy, did the earth look nice from the windows of the planes of your era?"
I would feel cursed to be born in the post-windows era.
I searched a bit about windows and in quora, a man explained how he built a house for himself with no windows, only cameras and flat monitors. So he had to use special bulbs in order his plants to not die without sun light...... And what about the owner of the house?!?! He could get sick without natural light. I could think of diseases like tuberculosis and fungus without natural light.
It makes me think too, about Blade Runner where a piece of real wood was something to see. Nothing was natural in that future.
It is sad. Like those people who run on running machines without going outside, those people who farm inside simulators on their computers.
I vote for keeping the windows.
-
My future kids asking me: "Daddy, did the earth look nice from the windows of the planes of your era?"
I would feel cursed to be born in the post-windows era.
Your future kids will think you were cursed for for growing up in an era without augmented reality.
-
Never work, how do the pilots see where they are going?
-
... Because if plastic Tesla car suffered no damage at all in the deep space
You didn't see the Tesla in "deep space". The cameras were on whilst it was in Earth orbit, minimum 190km, max 7000km approx. It was in Earth orbit for barely a couple of hours, and spent one-third to one-half of that time in the dark, on the night side of Earth.
I'm not surprised there was no damage evident in the footage. It hadn't had enough time to get damaged.
LOL!!! You are stating the Tesla was an altitude less than that of the ISS yet provided us the footage presented?
LOL Yes. Why not?
minimum 190km (over USA and thereabouts), max 7000km (over Australia and New Guinea). Way higher than the ISS when over Australia.
What do you see as the issue with the footage?
-
... Because if plastic Tesla car suffered no damage at all in the deep space
You didn't see the Tesla in "deep space". The cameras were on whilst it was in Earth orbit, minimum 190km, max 7000km approx. It was in Earth orbit for barely a couple of hours, and spent one-third to one-half of that time in the dark, on the night side of Earth.
I'm not surprised there was no damage evident in the footage. It hadn't had enough time to get damaged.
LOL!!! You are stating the Tesla was an altitude less than that of the ISS yet provided us the footage presented?
LOL Yes. Why not?
minimum 190km (over USA and thereabouts), max 7000km (over Australia and New Guinea). Way higher than the ISS when over Australia.
What do you see as the issue with the footage?
You are now claiming a sphere of supposedly 25000 miles in circumference can be depicted from a camera positioned anywhere from 190km to 7000 km?
Interesting claim...
-
You are now claiming a sphere of supposedly 25000 miles in circumference can be depicted from a camera positioned anywhere from 190km to 7000 km?
You don't see a sphere, you see a Spherical Cap of varying size, depending on your distance from it.
At best, far from the sphere, you see close enough the hemisphere nearest to you. You might see 179, 178 degrees of the 180 in a full hemisphere.
Get closer, and what you can see reduces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff/lossless-page1-220px-Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff.png)
As a for instance, if we assume the craft to be on a continuation of line h, then the limit of visibility will be the rightmost end of line r, and the matching point on the opposite side of the plane which forms the base of the cap.
You can see how this will vary with the length of continuation of line h, can't you?
Also;
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
See the illustration immediately after "You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)" ...
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg)
-
You are now claiming a sphere of supposedly 25000 miles in circumference can be depicted from a camera positioned anywhere from 190km to 7000 km?
You don't see a sphere, you see a Spherical Cap of varying size, depending on your distance from it.
At best, far from the sphere, you see close enough the hemisphere nearest to you. You might see 179, 178 degrees of the 180 in a full hemisphere.
Get closer, and what you can see reduces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff/lossless-page1-220px-Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff.png)
As a for instance, if we assume the craft to be on a continuation of line h, then the limit of visibility will be the rightmost end of line r, and the matching point on the opposite side of the plane which forms the base of the cap.
You can see how this will vary with the length of continuation of line h, can't you?
Also;
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/
See the illustration immediately after "You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera)" ...
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg)
Maybe you need to stop trotting out metabunk with its nontopical bs and stick to watching the mythical depictions provided from a non-existent tesla in space.
Go ahead, watch it again...
-
Go ahead, watch it again...
Done that. I uploaded a YT video which compares what was seen from the Tesla with the output from the Japanese Himawari-8 weather satellite, and - guess what? - it matched exactly.
I've also seen the output from more than one astrophotographer who captured it, exactly where expected, once it was out beyond the Moon.
Apart from scepticism and disbelief, what else do you have?