[AATW]

AATW - "I do not know how the math works, but I trust the source because it agrees with me."

You don't know the math, nor do you even know if the math they use is correct, plus you do not know if this type of view would be possible, even while viewing from the "LARGEST WINDOWS EVER!"

As I said, the code is given in the link. You are free to inspect it to see if they've made a mistake.
However, I've had a go at the maths:



Here is the triangle calculator I used

https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

So, unless I've made any mistakes, it would appear like this - this is drawn to scale:



Looks like a fairly noticeable curve to me, even with a viewing angle of only 30 degrees which seems more then plausible - that's only a 6th of a semi-circle.

[Tumeni]

The camera view from the red bull jump tried to depict the entirety of the US Portion of the NA Continent as occupying 100 percent portion of the arc on a nearly 90 percent cutaway of the sphere in the background.

Did anyone actually claim to be "trying" to do this, or is this just your claim? 

If you are able to see a sphere at the red bull apogee, where's the water?

First, I said nothing about being able to "see a sphere". I said that the various landmarks as seen from the craft clearly show a spherical cap consistent with the height of the craft, and the stated textbook size of a globe Earth. The maths of this is in the first part of AATW's post above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap



Just project upward along line h to place the craft above the surface.

The fact that we see no water is sorta the point. The water is out of view BECAUSE we're looking at a Spherical Cap

Taking the stated height of the craft, the extent of visibility is roughly this;



The water is out of visibility, because of the limits of the Spherical Cap.

One can look at the map, and establish landmarks which are within that circle, then spot them on the footage and photos. We can clearly see which are below the craft, and which are toward the extremity of the Spherical Cap. First, there's the distinctive land features near the launch site, as seen in google maps;



As seen from the craft, in stills I grabbed from the official video;

[Tumeni]

Looking at the photo Action80 posted, we can cross-reference to maps and make out the salient geographical features;



Feature A is North-East of Roswell, between the 70 and the 380, North West of "Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area"

From there, we can find A1 and A2, then work out from there to see B, C, etc

The distance between points A and C is of the order of 150 km.

A1 to A2 is around 30 - 35km

Look at the circle around the launch site that I posted above, and you can see that the Carson Forest and associated darker greenery is around half to 2/3rd of the way toward the edge of the circle; which tallies with the view from the capsule. There's still some land visible to the horizon beyond point C.

By all means, if anyone sees any inconsistency in this, please say so.

[AATW]

there is no need for you to shift the goalposts just yet. It was claimed that the footage is indisputable. It is beneficial for hvanmunster to understand just how disputable it is.

Cheerfully conceded. I mean, obviously anything is disputable if you operate in the sceptical context.

Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?

I'm not aware of any of them describing the shape of the horizon at all, nor do I see any reason to pay much attention to hearsay.

Isn't that all we've got on many things which we can't directly experience?
How do we form opinions on anything outside of our day to day reality?

[Pete Svarrior]

Isn't that all we've got on many things which we can't directly experience?

I strongly disagree that this is applicable here. We can experience the shape of the Earth much more directly, without relying on hearsay.

That said:

How do we form opinions on anything outside of our day to day reality?

Oh, I don't mind opinions, most people don't have a particularly high standard for those, and I'm no exception. It's when you start calling your half-arsed opinions "indisputable facts" that I get a bit miffed. As a society, have a serious problem with people conflating opinions with facts.

[Action80]

The distance between points A and C is of the order of 150 km.

A1 to A2 is around 30 - 35km

Look at the circle around the launch site that I posted above, and you can see that the Carson Forest and associated darker greenery is around half to 2/3rd of the way toward the edge of the circle; which tallies with the view from the capsule. There's still some land visible to the horizon beyond point C.

By all means, if anyone sees any inconsistency in this, please say so.

Yeah, the photo is altered to depict an arc of a sphere extending from an inch or so directly left of Baumgardner's head, up and over his head, to a point intersecting with the capsule (top of entrance). The total length of that arc cannot be much more than what you list for the distance between A - C, or 150 km.

So, you are claiming that nearly 180 arc of a 360 degree sphere only takes 150 km worth of land to form.

If you are claiming a spherical cap can be visually detected

[Tumeni]

So, you are claiming that nearly 180 arc of a 360 degree sphere only takes 150 km worth of land to form. If you are claiming a spherical cap can be visually detected

No, I'm not claiming that at all. The cameras upon the craft absolutely could not "see" 180 degrees of the globe, that's the whole point. The waters of the Pacific, Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, etc. are not in view because an observer at that height cannot see beyond the spherical cap below him, and the landmarks seen match up with the limited view of the spherical cap

I showed the circle over New Mexico which depicts the approximate size of the spherical cap.

I estimate from my diagrams that includes around around 20 - 25 degrees or so of latitude and longitude. Nowhere near 180.

EDIT - I overestimated - per AATW's method above, around 12 degrees

[Action80]

So, you are claiming that nearly 180 arc of a 360 degree sphere only takes 150 km worth of land to form. If you are claiming a spherical cap can be visually detected

No, I'm not claiming that at all. The cameras upon the craft absolutely could not "see" 180 degrees of the globe, that's the whole point. The waters of the Pacific, Gulf of California, Gulf of Mexico, etc. are not in view because an observer at that height cannot see beyond the spherical cap below him.

I showed the circle over New Mexico which depicts the approximate size of the spherical cap.

I estimate from my diagrams that includes around around 20 - 25 degrees or so of latitude and longitude. Nowhere near 180

So, you are claiming the arc I described is 150 km of the sphere, forming a 20 - 25 degree portion of the entire globe?

[Tumeni]

So, you are claiming the arc I described is 150 km of the sphere, forming a 20 - 25 degree portion of the entire globe?

No, I'm showing the approx size of the spherical cap in total is 20-25 degrees, as I said, casually ESTIMATED from the images, but as I edited above, calculating it results in approx 12 degrees.

I have not assessed the arc you described. What landmarks do you see that would help us in this respect? Do you agree with the landmarks I have shown, and the approximate distances between them?

[hvanmunster]

Hi Pete,

I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.
Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
  See: https://imgur.com/iaiQf3E

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards

[Dr David Thork]

Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
 

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards

But you can easily distort something close to you when something far away looks fine and vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

Think about how big a person's nose can look close to a camera that makes something in the distance look fine. You can't say, the thing close up look about right so the thing in the distance must also look right.


In order for an image to be in focus both near and far, you need a very short focal length and as you can see above, that screws up how things look close to the camera. If you corrected those, you'd screw up those far from the camera.

In other words, we'd need more info about lens and equipment and to be sure we weren't being told lies before we'd accept your photoshop images. I'd also want to know that Virgin weren't using some kind of Realtime AI round earth image correction to make their hoax seem more 'real' in this day and age.

[hvanmunster]

What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.

I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?

Have any of the people who experienced it said they saw a flat horizon at that height though?

It is likely they were more actually concerned with behaving and acting like kids on a rollercoaster, experiencing the temporary weightlessness one could achieve on said rollercoaster or the vomit comet, rather than actually looking out the window. As if your eyesight wouldn't be affected by the requirements of the glass in both of the craft in question, to begin with.

But, as I stated earlier.

Present the math indicating one could see the globe earth from an altitude of 55 miles.

Come on, do it. You made the claim, remember?

Hi,

You can find the math here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
Scroll down to the chapter 'Curvature of the horizon'

You can also find more info here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19037349/#:~:text=Visual%20daytime%20observations%20show%20that,degrees%20)%20and%20nearly%20cloud%20free.

And yes, it states the following "Photographs purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are always suspect because virtually all camera lenses project an image that suffers from barrel distortion"
But this is at 35k feet. I was talking about 35 km, which is roughly 3 times higher.
The graph 'approximation' on the wiki-page above shows that at that altitude, the amount 's' of visible horizon hardly increases anymore with higher altitude (because of the spherical nature of the earth)
If the earth were flat, that amount would continure to increase until the entire disc would be visible.

[hvanmunster]

Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
 

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards

But you can easily distort something close to you when something far away looks fine and vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

Think about how big a person's nose can look close to a camera that makes something in the distance look fine. You can't say, the thing close up look about right so the thing in the distance must also look right.


In order for an image to be in focus both near and far, you need a very short focal length and as you can see above, that screws up how things look close to the camera. If you corrected those, you'd screw up those far from the camera.

In other words, we'd need more info about lens and equipment and to be sure we weren't being told lies before we'd accept your photoshop images. I'd also want to know that Virgin weren't using some kind of Realtime AI round earth image correction to make their hoax seem more 'real' in this day and age.

OK. I agree with that (I mean: the part about lens distortion).
This means we're back to square one, because neither convexity nor flatness nor concavity can be derived from any stills of the footage.
So I'm willing to withdraw the word 'indisputable' in my previous post, because apparently that caused a lot of fuzz here on this forum 
Still, my point is: from a certain altitude onwards, the argument of lens-distortion becomes very difficult to maintain, because the curvature of the earth becomes bigger than the natural lens distortion of 'normal' lenses (unless of course a deliberate optical effect is chosen by using fish-eye lenses)
But since official organisations are currently the only ones who are able to travel far enough (and they are alledgedly faking their pictures), I guess we'll have to wait until commercial travels into space (way beyond the Karman line) become possible.

But I see you have already well prepared your argument for that moment : Realtime AI

So basically, we won't ever get any farther then square one, will we?

PS: I have not photoshopped any picture. I placed lines and text over it. I didn't alter anything (at least: not on the first picture).
If shrinking the width counts for photoshopping for you, then I'll agree with you to call the 2nd picture a 'photoshopped' picture, if that suits you better.
I don't want to upset anyone here.

[Dr David Thork]

But I see you have already well prepared your argument for that moment : Realtime AI

So basically, we won't ever get any farther then square one, will we?

Its going to get harder and harder to believe anything you see on video.

[hvanmunster]

Its going to get harder and harder to believe anything you see on video.

I totally agree with that. That's why I mainly trust my eyes.

A sunset above the sea (especially with half of the sun hidden behind/below the horizon) comforts me.

tfes explains sunset as light of the sun being bend 90° (and more) for regions on earth that are in the twilight zone. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

If this were true, then the earth - as seen from the sun's perspective - would appear to be a sphere.
This can be easily seen as follows: imagine a large cubical object (eg big skyscraper) with one side facing West. At sunset, only the front side of this cube is illuminated by the sun. The horizontal top plane ('roof of the skyscraper') is not illuminated directly because the rays of the sun are horizontal to that plane.
This applies to both the RE and FE model.

Now look at this from the sun's perpective. From this point of view only the 'front' side of the cube is visible. So the cube appears to be tilted backwards. This applies to any object which is in the twilight zone between day and night, allover the flat earth (that is: on a circle around and below the sun, as can be seen on many FE models). Objects directly below the sun (at 'midday') are seen from above, because the sunrays are going in a direct straight line from sun to earth (also in the FE model). So the flat earth would appear to be a sphere when seen from that perspective.

Ironically this is in accordance with the pictures from NASA. But FE adherents claim that all of these pictures are faked.

The fact that the flat earth would appear to be a sphere, can also be proved mathematically, because the bent lightrays of the FE model, falling on a flat surface are mathematically equivalent to the straight lightrays of the RE model, falling on a spherical surface. That is: if the curvature of the lightrays is carefully selected in order to correspond with what is observed in real life.
And since they are equivalent in one direction (from sun to earth), they have to be equivalent in the opposite direction as well.

[Pete Svarrior]

I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.

Okay. I'll watch from the sidelines and see for myself just how serious you are. So far, you're off to a terrible start, still denying the blindingly obvious, and trying to rationalise it away desperately. You're off to a terrible start, but hey, let's see how you handle things.

You did, unsurprisingly, measure the curvature of the wrong reference point, and you hyperfixated on the only image you could manipulate in that way - but we both knew that was coming. After all, you had no other choice if you wanted to force the RET narrative. Let's call that strike one.

Will you fix that by yourself, or are we going to have to drag you, kicking and screaming, through the process?

[hvanmunster]

I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.

Okay. I'll watch from the sidelines and see for myself just how serious you are. So far, you're off to a terrible start, still denying the blindingly obvious, and trying to rationalise it away desperately. You're off to a terrible start, but hey, let's see how you handle things.

You did, unsurprisingly, measure the curvature of the wrong reference point, and you hyperfixated on the only image you could manipulate in that way - but we both knew that was coming. After all, you had no other choice if you wanted to force the RET narrative. Let's call that strike one.

Will you fix that by yourself, or are we going to have to drag you, kicking and screaming, through the process?

No, I'm done with the 3 pictures. The debate has been sorted out with other members on this forum. I said I was willing to withdraw the word 'indisputable', as it clearly did upset some people here.
I also clarified my arguments, but I didn't admit being wrong. We called it even.

I'll see what the future brings.

[Pete Svarrior]

No, I'm done with the 3 pictures.

That's a shame. You've only touched one of them, and you exposed yourself as someone who's not interested in a discussion, but rather in reinforcing your own preconceptions, even against the plainly visible. You chose to just pretend not to see the flaw in your argument even after we rubbed your face all over it. A terrible start which will weigh you down here for as long as it takes you to sort yourself out.

But who knows - perhaps you will learn with future failures, even if you choose not to admit them.

[hvanmunster]

That´s a shame....

Actually I am still willing to debate the 3 pictures, but since you warned up to 3 times that I was going to get kicked off this forum if I insisted, I decided to stop arguing. It´s up to you to decide whether or not you want to continue with this topic.
If no, then I suggest we both stop arguing. we forget about it, call it even and wait for the next topic.
If yes, then I´m in. But in that case I would like to debate in mutual respect and on equal terms, which means that I´m allowed to defend my arguments uncensored, without the risk of getting expelled. (here in Europe we value the right ´freedom of speach´ as much as Americans do)

So it´s your decision. You´re the moderator.

Either way, you have my promise that I will never use rude language and I´ll treat any idea or argument respectfully, without laughing it away, no matter how outlandish the idea might seem to me. And I expect the same from the other members here.
After all, that is what you are looking for, if you were being honest in the YT interview ´coffee with a flat earther´. Isn´t it?

So I´m awaiting your decision and I´m hoping for/expecting less aggressive language from your side if there´s still a future for me on this forum.
Best regards

[DuncanDoenitz]

Hi Pete,

I am not trolling and I'm certainly not handwaving away your arguments.
Here's what I did in order to make clear that the photo you posted does not show concave curvature in my opinion:
(For your reference: I used the free Inkscape drawing program. It is a vector based program)
 - I drew a dashed line over the horizon. I used a dashed type of line,  so that you are able to verify for yourself that I'm not selecting some arbitrary points in the picture
 - Then I drew a straight line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon
 - I added a horizontal line for reference
    see this picture: https://imgur.com/N7vkwuA
 - I exported this picture to png
 - Then I resized the width from 100% to 20% without preserving the aspect ratio and saved it as a 2nd picture. This allows to see curved lines more pronounced.
    Please note that the straight lines which I drew are still straight. Only the angle of the line which connects both extremes of the visible horizon has changed (more tilted), the shape has not changed.
  See: https://imgur.com/iaiQf3E

I hope at least it explains why I'm not seeing any concaved curve. The line of the horizon is a bit fuzzy, so I would understand if you don't agree 100% with the dotted line I drew, but I'm willing to exchange the Inkscape csv file if you like.

Best regards

The original image in question was captured at short-haul airliner altitude during the airborne glide back to base.  Covid-permitting, many of us will have an opportunity to take clearer photographs this summer.