Now that I can see the image on the computer screen rather than the mobile screen, I can see that the panoramic function on the phone is distorting the imageRather than your deceptive sense of curvature, use a ruler or a paint program to draw a straight line superimposed over the water level. The railing and water level might not be exactly parallel to one another, but there is no discernable curvature.
[....]
but the curvature is still visible in this photo.
Rather than your deceptive sense of curvature,
If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?
If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.
If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.
Yes, if you are high enough, but the the picture I was referring to was taken only a small distance above sea level.If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.
No, there is definitely curvature to be seen if you are high enough. The horizon forms a circle around you. If you are exactly in the middle of the circle, it just looks like a straight line. If you are above the circle, then you can see the actual curve of the circle. It's a bit complicated to calculate though.
Yes, if you are high enough, but the the picture I was referring to was taken only a small distance above sea level.If the horizon is the same distance away from left to right, then how much curvature does one expect to see from that elevation on a round Earth?Well, my answer would be that since the horizon would be exactly the same distance in ever direction (symmetry), there is no curvature to be seen.
No, there is definitely curvature to be seen if you are high enough. The horizon forms a circle around you. If you are exactly in the middle of the circle, it just looks like a straight line. If you are above the circle, then you can see the actual curve of the circle. It's a bit complicated to calculate though.
That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.
That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.
If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.
The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1) The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet. That immediately disproves tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.
That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.
If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.
The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1) The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet. That immediately disproves tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.
He could go further, but he's waiting for rabinoz to come up with some more ideas for him.
OK, you want curvature! As I said you just have to go high enough.That is interesting that you see curvature in that photo. It certainly seems to be evidence of something. But I don't see any curvature, so I can't see it as evidence that the Earth is round.
If you are near the level of the sea, you really can't see much curvature of the horizon itself.
The real evidence of the curvature of the earth is in .:
(1) The horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet. That immediately disproves tbe flat earth idea that "the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in the distance at some infinite distance."
(2) The distance to the horizon can be estimated. The higher you are, the farther you can see to the horizon.
(3) Unless there is something high beyond the horizon , you can not see objects beyond the horizon.
I could go further, but these are just a few examples of the curvature of the earth which proves the earth is not flat.
If the earth was flat, the distance you could see would be as far as the "thickness of the atmoplane" permitted.
He could go further, but he's waiting for rabinoz to come up with some more ideas for him.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Himawari%202016.04.26%2003.30UTC_zpstksv5rlj.png) Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Himawari%202016.04.26%2011.00UTC_zpsn4bm9br4.png) Himawari 2016.04.26 11.00 UTC |
OK, you want curvature! As I said you just have to go high enough.Yes, about 22,236 miles is pretty good![/b]
Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC
Himawari 2016.04.26 11.00 UTC
You may or may not accept it, but that's your problem, not mine.
Is it just me or does the land mass and clouds in these digital illustrations not even conform to a spherical shape? It looks more like a looking glass if anything, especially with that exaggerated glow around the perimeter which makes absolutely no sense.It is just you! "The land mass and clouds" is a very recent photo of the globe. To my knowledge the ones in the previous post were not retouched at at all. This one of course is.
OK, you want curvature! As I said you just have to go high enough.Yes, about 22,236 miles is pretty good![/b]
Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC
Himawari 2016.04.26 11.00 UTC
You may or may not accept it, but that's your problem, not mine.
If you're high enough to think those images are proof, I guess you'd believe the Star Wars planet Aldreaan is real too!
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/4/4a/Alderaan.jpg)
And Star Trek's "Genesis" planet!
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/b/b1/Genesis2285.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100117054752&path-prefix=en)
And perhaps this one from The Little Prince...
(http://ap1.alchetron.com/cdn/The-Little-Prince-1974-film-images-fbe4eba0-2aac-4f46-8891-38a5a3cdd92.jpg?op=OPEN)
Of course it is a composite photo in the sense that it is the combination of signals from a number of sensors. I believe these satellites have sensors for eight separate wavelengths, covering at least the infra-red and visible ranges.
Stop being an idiot.No personal insults, please.
There is one very big difference! I can see that the cloud cover on the satellite photos matches local weather here - what I see outside, and what appears on radar and weather reports (yes, I know a lot of those come from the same satellites).You think you recognize the clouds above your head in the picture? Do you also think you see your house in the picture?
No, but what I see on the satellite photoos is consistent with what I see outside and with reports of weather fronts, Cyclone location etc.Stop being an idiot.No personal insults, please.QuoteThere is one very big difference! I can see that the cloud cover on the satellite photos matches local weather here - what I see outside, and what appears on radar and weather reports (yes, I know a lot of those come from the same satellites).You think you recognize the clouds above your head in the picture? Do you also think you see your house in the picture?
Is it just me or does the land mass and clouds in these digital illustrations not even conform to a spherical shape? It looks more like a looking glass if anything, especially with that exaggerated glow around the perimeter which makes absolutely no sense.
No, but what I see on the satellite photoos is consistent with what I see outside and with reports of weather fronts, Cyclone location etc.Stop being an idiot.No personal insults, please.QuoteThere is one very big difference! I can see that the cloud cover on the satellite photos matches local weather here - what I see outside, and what appears on radar and weather reports (yes, I know a lot of those come from the same satellites).You think you recognize the clouds above your head in the picture? Do you also think you see your house in the picture?
I suppose you think they have rows and rows of graphic artists painting all these pictures (and of course all the other "real-time" satellite photos we have available) so they can publish them every 10, 30 min or so. Some of you conspiracy nuts really are something.
So many millions know about the fake Globe, but aren't telling. Do you wonder we all laugh behind your your backs, but sometimes it all spills over. Is is amusing though just thinking that you are so deluded that you think you are in a special little group that knows "THE TRUTH" and all us poor idiots are so ignorant.::) :o Still, if it bolsters your flagging ego, it probably serbes some use. ::) ::)
I should apologise, but comments like that simply invite more of the same.
What about you coming up with those photos supporting a flat earth. Or some sound evidence - I afraid I have NEVER seen any that is convincing.
So many of you are so negative, yet have any no sound alternative to the Heliocentric Globe.
I went to a "Star Party" at Mc Donald Observatory in Texas several years ago. They had several telescopes aimed at various objects in the night sky. NASA must have been very , very busy painting all those pictures on those telescopes to fool people into thinking they were seeing the real thing. There was one of a nebula and one of Saturn, with its rings.
All "fake" of course because at least some FE's say planets (including the earth) don't exist.
I suppose you think they have rows and rows of graphic artists painting all these pictures (and of course all the other "real-time" satellite photos we have available) so they can publish them every 10, 30 min or so.So you've never heard of computer animations and simulations, or deny that such things exist. Check.
So many millions know about the fake Globe, but aren't telling.Your claim, not mine. I have no idea how many people actually know. But I can do math and think logically, and - more importantly - am willing to look at things the mainstream considers "taboo" - such as taking a closer look at the claims of "settled science".
you think you are in a special little group that knows "THE TRUTH" and all us poor idiots are so ignorant.Interesting that you have the need to invent such scenarios. Rather than engaging in projection can you instead try to remain on topic?
photos supporting a flat earth. Or some sound evidence - I afraid I have NEVER seen any that is convincing.So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions. For example, a view all the way across Lake Ontario, which is dismissed, ad hoc, as refraction somehow revealing scenery behind an obstacle in the way of the line of sight - even though refraction never behaves in such a way in any observable circumstance. But doctored photos that show a huge swell of water with an abrupt edge in the middle are regarded as real? Earth photos with "SEX" written in the clouds?
QuoteSo many millions know about the fake Globe, but aren't telling.Your claim, not mine. I have no idea how many people actually know. But I can do math and think logically, and - more importantly - am willing to look at things the mainstream considers "taboo" - such as taking a closer look at the claims of "settled science".
Quotephotos supporting a flat earth. Or some sound evidence - I afraid I have NEVER seen any that is convincing.So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions. For example, a view all the way across Lake Ontario, which is dismissed, ad hoc, as refraction somehow revealing scenery behind an obstacle in the way of the line of sight - even though refraction never behaves in such a way in any observable circumstance.
Earth photos with "SEX" written in the clouds?
Anecdotally, I have literally never seen a photo that supports a flat earth. If you have a link for this view across Lake Ontario, I would appreciate it.
QuoteEarth photos with "SEX" written in the clouds?
Ugh, Disney is at it again!
Anecdotally, I have literally never seen a photo that supports a flat earth. If you have a link for this view across Lake Ontario, I would appreciate it.
Google Image Results for Toronto across lake Ontario (https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+across+lake+ontario&tbm=isch&imgil=IpukuQo3w9JOxM%253A%253B6uIA7p-gUJkkNM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25252Fwatch%25253Fv%2525253D1ShUmY-INVY&source=iu&pf=m&fir=IpukuQo3w9JOxM%253A%252C6uIA7p-gUJkkNM%252C_&usg=__4t3gaqch0wbW_p8o3dUf3j853Vc%3D&biw=1536&bih=754&ved=0ahUKEwji3cvfn8bMAhVJyj4KHVMZAyoQyjcIJg&ei=GfksV6LtFMmU-wHTsozQAg#tbm=isch&q=toronto+across+lake+ontario&imgrc=_)
If you have a link for this view across Lake Ontario, I would appreciate it.
If you have a link for this view across Lake Ontario, I would appreciate it.
[several images of Toronto]
If you want to understand how mirages can obscure lower parts of scenery immediately above water, look up what "fata morgana" is. This for example is one long boat with its bottom half totally obscured by such a mirage.
Rough calculation time:Sky is at sunset and has a bright orange glow - but no orange light is seen at all in the incident reflections of the waves in the water. See, those are the sort of obviously F-A-K-E-D composite pictures that I am literally amazed people look at and believe are legit.
Using the first image (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Toronto_seen_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott_2.JPG), the bottom third of the CN Tower (1800 feet) appears to be obscured. So that's about 600 feet obscured by the horizon.
Rough calculation time:Sky is at sunset and has a bright orange glow - but no orange light is seen at all in the incident reflections of the waves in the water. See, those are the sort of obviously F-A-K-E-D composite pictures that I am literally amazed people look at and believe are legit.
Using the first image (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Toronto_seen_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott_2.JPG), the bottom third of the CN Tower (1800 feet) appears to be obscured. So that's about 600 feet obscured by the horizon.
So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions.
Cloudy weather + rough water = dark water. Have you ever seen a big lake or ocean before? I see views like that all the time. Anybody else who has spent enough time around large bodies of water can confirm this.I don't know what's wrong with you. Water surface reflects light and it should be sparkling with the color of the bright highlights glaringly visible in the sky. I live near the Pacific coast and have seen many, many sunsets over the ocean. I've seen them over bays. I've seen them over lakes.
You literally just said this several posts up:If I were to have said I reject the photo simply because the lower portions of are occluded, but I didn't. The color of the bright orange highlights in the sky doesn't show in the water at all. I'd have to be an idiot to accept such a shoddy composite as real.So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions.
Does the irony of this situation strike you at all?
How did you come to the assumption that the observer was 54 feet in the air?
Cloudy weather + rough water = dark water. Have you ever seen a big lake or ocean before? I see views like that all the time. Anybody else who has spent enough time around large bodies of water can confirm this.I don't know what's wrong with you. Water surface reflects light and it should be sparkling with the color of the bright highlights glaringly visible in the sky. I live near the Pacific coast and have seen many, many sunsets over the ocean. I've seen them over bays. I've seen them over lakes.
QuoteYou literally just said this several posts up:If I were to have said I reject the photo simply because the lower portions of are occluded, but I didn't. The color of the bright orange highlights in the sky doesn't show in the water at all. I'd have to be an idiot to accept such a shoddy composite as real.So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions.
Does the irony of this situation strike you at all?
Of course it is a composite photo in the sense that it is the combination of signals from a number of sensors. I believe these satellites have sensors for eight separate wavelengths, covering at least the infra-red and visible ranges.
You're right about that, the visible-light images are a three channel composite of red, blue, and green, while the infrared and the water vapor images are composites of multiple infrared wavelengths. Color-compositing is not unique to satellite photography, either. It is how CCD and CMOS sensors (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor) in all digital cameras work. In essence, EVERY photo taken today is a color-composite photo!
But of course when most people say "composite" they're not talking about color-composite, they're talking about stitching multiple small images into one large image, which is not how the Advanced Himawari Imager (http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/en/himawari89/space_segment/spsg_ahi.html#obs) aboard these satellites is achieving the full-disk image. The field of view is wide enough to capture the image in one shot.