(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2rh5uvc.jpg)
Sorry. I had a write up that went with that. Don't know what happened or why it didn't post.(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2rh5uvc.jpg)
Refrain from posting images without context. It adds nothing to the discussion. Warned.
Plenty o' curvature here.How do you know that's not a disc?
I get your point but from the cloud patterns it looks like they are wrapped around a globe. A flat painting can be made to look 3D using perspective in the way it's drawn so it's possible that this is a disc but it gives the appearance of a sphere.Plenty o' curvature here.How do you know that's not a disc?
(See my edited post above. I'm having difficulty getting this point across, but maybe it's because I'm wrong. Open to correction.)
How do you know that's not a disc?
All reasons other than (or complement to) the “curve,” because that curve is circumference arc - which both circle and sphere possess - and not horizon dip, which a sphere has but not a circle.How do you know that's not a disc?
The craft was seen by thousands leaving Cape Canaveral going East, two sets of these videos were seen of it passing over Australia in an easterly direction toward the Pacific, with perfect matching between what was seen from this craft and the weather satellite over the Australian region, and witnesses with cameras saw the exit burn, where it left Earth orbit, from the West coast of California.
In the same way that I saw the ISS crossing my sky with 90 minutes between passes; nobody saw this craft changing direction, nor going westward at any time. All footage is entirely consistent with a craft travelling Eastward to get back to where it started from.
You went out of your way to state many times that the lens wasn't a fish-eye. While this much is obvious (you're clearly responding to an argument about very different kinds of "space" photography, but I'm not very surprised that you'd try to conflate these to make your argument sound "stronger"), you can very clearly see the extent of curvature change within seconds as the camera pans up and down.
You can also see moments at any altitude that share the same extent of curvature - even comparing "just barely off the ground" to "high up in 'space'"!
Gee, oh gee, I wonder why that might be. Since it's clearly not optics, as you so strongly asserted with 0 evidence, it must be that the curvature of the Round Earth physically changes depending on how we look at it.
...you can very clearly see the extent of curvature change within seconds as the camera pans up and down...This is 2D "curve", like the curve of a circle.
I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?
I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?
You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence...Could you perhaps enlighten us with the mechanics behind these cameras' lies? Maybe they're all being baid off by nasa. ;)
I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?
I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.
I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.
I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.
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.
| Low: | High: |
| (https://preview.ibb.co/iD0Cg7/1_less400m.jpg) (https://ibb.co/k12fZS) | (https://preview.ibb.co/i4Ww8n/2_24km.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fscsg7) |
| . | . |
| . | . |
| Low: | High: |
| (https://preview.ibb.co/dikOon/4_less300m.jpg) (https://ibb.co/i7qpTn) | (https://preview.ibb.co/nqpSES/3_35_2km.jpg) (https://ibb.co/n5FOon) |
In the pictures is definately a curve. Pete saw it too. Not sure what explanation is.Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher.
How do you know that's not a disc?
The craft was seen by thousands leaving Cape Canaveral going East,
Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher.
But don't worry, the Wiki has you covered, bro
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
Some good footage here from the ISS of a sunrise and sunset from there which might be close to what you're talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvuzjrhpSZg
I made this image for comparison of curvature.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.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/Hi5AFA1.jpg)
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, 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...
I'll make it simpler.
Imagine the earth was a flat square ... what shape is the horizon?
(http://i66.tinypic.com/ju7989.jpg)
Something like this? With a straight horizon?
Now imagine it is a flat disc. Still got a perfectly straight horizon?
(http://i63.tinypic.com/351zdax.jpg)
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.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/5yay2u.jpg)
Its not a ball, is it? But it has a horizon, a curved one.
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.
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?
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2hd1lrc.jpg)
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'.
Real life demonstration example:Or take a picture of Thork's plate, but as a fly would see it. Looks dead straight.
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.
Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKAblynZYhI
And for MUCH of the time you can see curve. Not fisheye. Not some act of perspective. Real, authentic, curvature of the earth.
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKAblynZYhI
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.
I'll make it simpler.
Imagine the earth was a flat square ... what shape is the horizon?
(http://i66.tinypic.com/ju7989.jpg)
Something like this? With a straight horizon?
Now imagine it is a flat disc. Still got a perfectly straight horizon?
(http://i63.tinypic.com/351zdax.jpg)
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.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/5yay2u.jpg)
Its not a ball, is it? But it has a horizon, a curved one.
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'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?
No, it isn't the edge of the earth, it is the edge of your perception.So as said elsewhere, we simply leave the subject unknown. Could be a ball could be a flat disc, we just don't know as we cannot perceive the difference.
If the first 50 miles is 2 inches vertical, and the next 50 miles is one inch vertical ... eventually 50 miles is a millimetre, then a nanometer to the point you can't tell how far you are seeing. It all merges into one and forms a curve around you with you at the centre.
But still, I think if it is flat disc as would not surprise me, we should be able to see the edge of it with a large telescope, no?No, but that is a discussion about meteorological visibility and not vanishing points.