Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 283  Next >
Can you please stop just posting video without any sort of comment?
I'd like to echo Rama's sentiment with my mod hat on. There's nothing wrong with sharing videos to support or enrich a point, but posting videos with no context or original discussion has always been frowned upon around here.

Except that the street was quite obviously teeming with people.
It is an expressly written and legally enforceable contract that that's not how streets work.

Were the protesters just supposed to turn the other cheek when the Prius driver attempted to push them out of the way with his ton of metal?
It's a bit of an unwritten social contract that people try not to be in the way of a moving vehicle. Those who choose not to follow that contract are usually given a very special kind of medical attention.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« on: Today at 04:48:12 PM »
I didn't mean to raise it to nitpick on the phrasing. It's the substance of the point that matters. I don't think many people, RE or FE, would claim that Antarctica is mostly ice, with little land.

FE'ers claim we don't know much about what lies far beyond the Ice Wall. This is not to dispute the knowledge of Antarctica within the known Earth.

Please fix your image links. People shouldn't have to reverse-engineer your post just to be able to figure out what point you're making.

Take a screenshot and kick up the contrast for a better view.
We cannot know what that line actually is. It's most likely not the horizon, which is why you needed to "kick up" the contrast.

Then if you look again at 15 km, a subtle curve is visible.
Ah, yes, interesting - once the horizon appears slightly above the middle of the frame, it starts to look like it's curving a little. I wonder why that might be. I wonder why it follows the formula for barrel distortion to the tee, and why adjusting for it makes it disappear. Truly mind-boggling, that one.

Finally, at the highest point, you can clearly see a curve.
Your red line doesn't even attempt to align with the horizon here - I'm not sure if that's you being incompetent or just trying to lie. Hilariously enough, the curve here is lesser than that in your 15km screenshot. I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that the horizon is closer to the middle of the frame.

EDIT: For the absolute avoidance of doubt, here's your screenshot with the actual horizon traced correctly:

Now, let's take my purple shape and superimpose it on your supposedly "less curved" horizon at 15km:

Blimey! Who'da thunk it. When you do things correctly, you get consistent results.

How could a camera artifact account for a changing curve? Just interested ;).
Let's start with the basics - this isn't "a camera effect". It's basic optics. "How does optics affect what we see?" is a question I sincerely consider beneath anyone here.

Additionally, I don't think anyone has made any claims to the diameter of the earth
Yes, you would think that. However, claims have consequences. If you simultaneously claim that:

  • The Earth is round
  • Your video is not subject to barrel distortion
  • It was not taken with a wide-angle lens
  • You can see a curvature at altitudes as low as 15km with the naked eye

Then only one option remains geometrically feasible - the Earth must be tiny. Of course, the alternative is that one of the claims above is false - I strongly suggest you consider that possibility.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« on: Today at 01:19:31 PM »
Antarctica is just an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?
I'm not convinced that the Wiki says that. All I can see is a breakdown of the Antarctic coastline (which appears to be consistent with RET).

Perhaps you could reference your source for the claim that Antarctica is all ice?

The tray seam, shown as an arc in the screen capture, dips 3 pixels below the long straight blue line. Were it the same width as the image, 1117 pixels, it would dip (1117/715) x 3 = 4.6 pixels. This is still sustantially less than the estimated 23 pixels the horizon rises above the straight red line, in fact about a fifth of the rise.
This continues not to be how geometry works. I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do to help you with this. The ratio between the "line" and "dip" have nothing to do with the eccentricity of these two arcs. I can keep pointing out that you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, but in the end of the day you won't accept it, because you're not interested in being correct - you just want to confirm your preconceptions.

But hey, let's keep on keeping on. Let's illustrate the issue with my previous example:

The span of the white frame is 590 pixels, and the "dip" (sagitta) of the first arc is 14 pixels.

The second arc has a span of 195 pixels and a sagitta of 1.5 pixels.

You assert that I can make these comparable through a simple ratio. Let's do that.

1.5*590/195 = 4.53

As you can see, by your logic, I should expect that the arc towards the bottom of the image is much less curved than the one closer to the middle. However, even a cursory visual comparison will reveal that not to be the case. In reality, when measured correctly, the sagitta of the second arc is 23 pixels. Your logic fails.

The physical reason behind your error is that (as you astutely pointed out) the effect is more pronounced the further away from the centre of the frame you are. By sampling the curvature from just the (horizontal) middle of the frame, you fail to account for the significant increase in effect towards the edges.

You also entirely ignored the many issues with your "23 pixels" estimate - the line you're using as your reference point does not touch the horizon on either edge of the frame (or, indeed, at all). When adjusted appropriately, the correct sagitta is more akin to 10 pixels.

You already know how to correctly verify your claim. If you choose to "deliberately refrain" from proving your position, then I don't think we have much left to discuss.

I repeat the general point about barrel distortion being important near the edges of an image, whereas it's very slight near the middle of the same image.
Terms like "very slight" and "important" continue to be meaningless. The supposed curvature of the horizon in the image you're focusing on is "very slight" and "not important" and yet here you are fixating on it.

The lens was an 18-135mm zoom
Do you realise how extremely wide this range is, and how useless that statement is as a result? An 18mm focal would be bordering on a fisheye lens, which this obviously isn't. A 135mm focal wouldn't capture anything remotely close to this wide an area. Before you can perform your experiment, you need to know the actual focal of the lens at the time of filming, not what the particular device is capable of.

I deliberately do not intend to process the image for distortion in Lightroom or any other program, because we have both seen many claims over the years that this, that or another image can't be trusted as it's been "Photoshopped" and we both know the pointlessness of such arguments.
Yes, as I pointed out many times, there are more severe issues at play here than you trying to circumvent simple optics and geometry. Nonetheless, my focus for now is on pointing out these two failures, and altering the photograph to more accurately represent what you should see from an altitude of 27km would be beneficial to you.

Yours must be a thankless task, moderating forums populated mostly by people who doubt or outright reject the flat earth hypothesis.
Oi now, governor. There is absolutely no need to get personal, innit.

Another week and another sceptic with experience and real-world knowledge asks difficult questions
Yes, with insight and expertise like referring to a lens as an "18mm-135mm zoom" when trying to determine its barrel distortion, claiming that the Earth is round but 5 times smaller than in RET, or demonstrating your excellent knowledge of geometry as you did above, you're guaranteed to blow me away.

EDIT: I note that I've been referring to these curves as "arcs" which may be a bit hasty - they could be arcs, but they might not be depending on the specific situation. I'll leave the phrasing as-is since it doesn't particularly affect any of the underlying reasoning, but it's only fair that I highlight that inaccuracy.

I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in your whataboutism.

Your measurements are extremely fuzzy: the horizon is not at all well-defined within the picture, but you're pretending it is; you're also comparing the curvature of two arcs of different spans by simply measuring the difference in their sagittae - a mathematical non-starter. The red line you're measuring from doesn't even touch the horizon on either edge of the frame.

You also describe your expectations as "correct" despite knowing absolutely nothing about the setup in use - you call them "correct" because they match your preconception.

In fact, we can commit similar crimes on geometry with your own grid:

I already provided you with simple steps to correct the photo for barrel distortion. If you really deny its significance, you can verify your own claim.

It's strange that you're so desperate on this particular point, too. It's not like it changes how useful the photo is - it's just a drop in an ocean of issues.

Which part of the image was the “middle” again?
Bright green lines added for your convenience - though I'm not sure why that needed my input. Surely you could have measured it yourself?

First of all, extreme barreleye?
You're the only one to have called it extreme. I called it obvious. And if is obvious - all you need to do is inspect the box, as we already did.

Before it enters the cloud layer, draw lines along straight objects like the truck bed, table, roads, etc. They all seem fairly straight.
If we're operating with such nebulous and imprecise terms as "fairly straight", then we might as well say that the horizon "seems fairly straight" in the screenshot presented. We already have a perfectly good reference point to gauge the level of distortion, one that's always in frame. Why should we discard it and keep looking for new ones? Just to match your hypothesis?

However, nobody has demonstrated distortion across the middle of the camera view, where the horizon is shown in the screen capture displayed in the OP.
The horizon is not in the middle of the view in that picture, and its perceivable curvature is more subtle than that of the tray seam line. This is consistent with barrel distortion.

The best way forward here, if you're really unsure, would be to establish what lens was used and adjust the photo for distortion in something like Lightroom.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 21, 2020, 07:14:16 PM »
Guys, don't hotlink from major social media sites. The image won't show to anyone who hasn't already seen it and cached it in their browser.

Reupload somewhere you can trust, then post.

You can even use the attachment functionality for small enough images.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 21, 2020, 02:44:45 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 21, 2020, 09:36:03 AM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 05:38:54 PM »
Saddam, don't hotlink from Twitter - the image won't show up to anyone that doesn't already have it cached in their browser. Reupload it somewhere before linking.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 05:25:06 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 02:24:35 PM »
Sorry, I forgot about my all-time favourite of these:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 02:05:02 PM »
Here are a handful to get started:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Terrible Political Memes
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:59:47 PM »
I've recently added myself to a few all-caps political fb groups. We're talking stuff like "BLOOMBERG FOR PURPOSE" (formerly "BLOOMBERG FOR PRESIDENT 2020") and "TRUMP SUPPORTERS UK".

In case you're not familiar, these groups can often produce some amazing content (unless they get overrun by trolls, at which point it becomes a bit boring). I will use this thread to post occasional highlights, basically creating a dump of terrible political memes.

Please feel free to join me, but bear in mind that for this thread to be successful, we should follow a couple of guidelines:
  • Don't just post stuff you disagree with. If it's not a picture of Trump and Raegan hugging it out while Jesus is injecting himself with marijuana in the background, you're doing it wrong.
  • Don't discuss the merit behind the pictures. Most of them will include terrible hot takes which aren't worthy of serious consideration.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: #justiceforRonJ
« on: September 19, 2020, 04:36:31 PM »
Deal with the subject matter.
The subject matter has been dealt with. Every member of staff reviewed the issue individually, and the agreement reached was that the rules were executed properly, within a reasonable use of moderator discretion. You are perfectly entitled to dislike this, but ultimately, the site is run by its owners, not by you.

You claim to represent "the community" - I'll defer you to garygreen's comment in this thread. You represent nobody but yourself, and nobody is buying your holier-than-thou attitude. Roundy has made some interesting points about the letter vs. spirit of the rules, and I'll see if we can tighten the phrasing in some occasions. In the meantime, your "do as I say or else I'll keep shitting all over the forum" attitude has run its course.

You made yourself perfectly clear yesterday. You don't give a damn about this site or its users. What you care about is starting trouble and "winning", even if it comes at the cost of wrecking the place. We are not going to waste any more time on you or your concern-trolling.

Thread locked.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 283  Next >