*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 697
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2019, 07:24:56 PM »
God I'm so glad this is absolutely not true, otherwise every time I wake up to sleep paralysis and see some crazy shit it would turn out to be real.
I think totallackey said that your senses are the only thing that is real, not everything you sense is real.

OK - now the philosophical discussion of what "real" is.....
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2019, 07:53:59 PM »
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
I did explain it within the analogy of ..."a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him."

If that light is within range, the creature would be in light.

If not, it does mean the light set behind a CURVED surface or appeared after rising over a CURVED surface.

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2019, 08:22:49 PM »
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.

Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing. But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.

Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.

Sure, different lenses create different optical effects. You can look up the gear used and settings for each image from the ISS. The lower the focal length the more 'roundness' you're going to get. No mystery there.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

newhorizons

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2019, 08:33:57 PM »
Quote
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
No I can't honestly say I believe there are astronauts on the ISS but I can honestly write that I know there are. While UK astronaut Tim Peake was on the ISS I had the privilege to be part of a live feed we set up at the school where I work. We were able to communicate with astronauts onboard the ISS and ask them questions about the experiments they were performing. One of the science teachers has a relative who works at the ESA control centre where communications are made to the ISS directly.

I'm sorry that you disbelieve all this. However it is simply a case of self-denial based on your mindset.  Many aspects of modern science and technology are clearly incompatible with what the FE believe is actually true. However rather than accept at some point that they may be wrong, the FE movement simply dismiss any evidence that goes against what they believe by accusing it of being faked, covered up or whatever similar synonyms you prefer to use. In short it is easier to bury your head in the sand I guess than admit that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong in harbouring a particular belief of course. Those of a religious mindset believe in God and as far as I am concerned if that makes they happy then it does no one any harm. Whether anyone can 'prove' the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant. Same principle applies to FE.  Some people believe it some don't. Does it really matter?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 09:19:01 AM by newhorizons »

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2019, 07:08:52 AM »
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
If yes, why?
Yes. As for why...
Because you can see the ISS from the ground. It's definitely up there. There are websites where you can find out when and where to see it.
I've even see a video from a flat earther (Jeranism, possibly?) showing the ISS doing a transit of the moon. Even he conceded it was up there.
I've seen a Shuttle launch so I know that the Space Shuttle was a thing. No, I didn't see it go all the way into space but neither did I see it land anywhere.
I've not seen a scrap of evidence that the shuttle secretly landed anywhere. I have no reason to think that the Shuttle didn't operate exactly as NASA claimed. Hundreds of people have been to space. Am I to believe they are all lying? 7 of those were "space tourists" who paid a huge sum to spend time on the ISS. Are they lying too or have they been fooled somehow? In the space race in the 60s Russia got many of the initial "firsts" then the US started pumping huge amounts of money into it and managed to overhaul them. Neither site ever called the other out as faking anything. Why wouldn't they?
Jodrell Bank in the UK was tracking the Apollo 11 mission and Luna 15, a Russian unmanned probe that crashed on to the moon not long before the Eagle landed.

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181

Are these guys lying too?
My Satellite dish is pointing at something in the sky. I know this because a neighbour did some work on his house and the scaffolding blocked the signal, he had to move the dish for me so my TV worked again. My GPS works, I have no reason to think it works in any other way than the way I've been told.

Quote
Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity

I don't. But do you? All the "evidence" I've seen claiming that the footage is faked is from people who are clearly not experts in the field. Vague assertions from people with an agenda isn't strong evidence of fakery.

Quote
Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.
So what's your claim here? Someone else has explained to you about different lenses and the effects of them.
Are you claiming that NASA are smart enough to fake footage from space well enough to fool most people in the world but also dumb enough to get the curve wrong? Or did they deliberately put a fish-eye effect on their CGI to help out the conspiracy theorists? Why on earth would they do that?

Bottom line: I can't go to space right now. I can't go to Antarctica. I could go to Australia, but it's a long way. My beliefs about anything I can't directly experience have to be based on other people's accounts, as do yours. I know you're all about what you personally witness but that isn't always possible. Do you have an opinion about the Kennedy Assassination? Unless you were there, your opinion has to be based on things you've read and seen as does mine. Unless we witness an event, that's all we have. We have to look at evidence and balance of probabilities. What is your evidence that makes you think space travel isn't a thing and is all a big hoax? Powerful rockets demonstrably exist so why is it so hard to believe?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2019, 11:27:55 AM »
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

Within my normal day-to-day life I witness the sun rise and set, and thus I do not witness any flat earth. So does humanity.
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Then explain it please. How can I see a sunset or sunrise if the earth were flat.

Or explain why it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
I did explain it within the analogy of ..."a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him."

If that light is within range, the creature would be in light.

If not, it does mean the light set behind a CURVED surface or appeared after rising over a CURVED surface.

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.


I will repeat the analogy, adding a little more conditions:
A proportionately sized and luminous light to that of the sun above us;
Proportionate distances to those now claimed for FE.
A creature, the size of an ant and possessing the visual acuity of a human, occupying any space on the earth, would lose complete sight of the light source above it and occupy a totally dark space, without that light rising or setting upon a curved surface.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2019, 11:34:39 AM »
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.
Fair enough.
Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing.
Please specify the differences you see between those of Howard Wolowitz and those of the purported astronauts on the ISS that lead you to believe one is the real deal and the other is just Hollywood.
But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.
Or, it isn't as hard as they claim and it is getting easier by the minute.

Why the need for FX "artists?" Why not just FX "artist?"

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 12:49:59 PM by totallackey »

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2019, 11:38:51 AM »
Quote
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
No I can't honestly say I believe there are astronauts on the ISS but I can honestly write that I know there are. While UK astronaut Tim Peake was on the ISS I had the privilege to be part of a live feed we set up at the school where I work. We were able to communicate with astronauts onboard the ISS and ask them questions about the experiments they were performing. One of the science teachers has a relative who works at the ESA control centre where communications are made to the ISS directly.

I'm sorry that you disbelieve all this. However it is simply a case of self-denial based on your mindset.  Many aspects of modern science and technology are clearly incompatible with what the FE believe is actually true. However rather than accept at some point that they may be wrong, the FE movement simply dismiss any evidence that goes against what they believe by accusing it of being faked, covered up or whatever similar synonyms you prefer to use. In short it is easier to bury your head in the sand I guess than admit that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong in harbouring a particular belief of course. Those of a religious mindset believe in God and as far as I am concerned if that makes they happy then it does no one any harm. Whether anyone can 'prove' the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant. Same principle applies to FE.  Some people believe it some don't. Does it really matter?
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 12:45:37 PM by totallackey »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 460
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2019, 01:04:48 PM »
Quote
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
No I can't honestly say I believe there are astronauts on the ISS but I can honestly write that I know there are. While UK astronaut Tim Peake was on the ISS I had the privilege to be part of a live feed we set up at the school where I work. We were able to communicate with astronauts onboard the ISS and ask them questions about the experiments they were performing. One of the science teachers has a relative who works at the ESA control centre where communications are made to the ISS directly.

I'm sorry that you disbelieve all this. However it is simply a case of self-denial based on your mindset.  Many aspects of modern science and technology are clearly incompatible with what the FE believe is actually true. However rather than accept at some point that they may be wrong, the FE movement simply dismiss any evidence that goes against what they believe by accusing it of being faked, covered up or whatever similar synonyms you prefer to use. In short it is easier to bury your head in the sand I guess than admit that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong in harbouring a particular belief of course. Those of a religious mindset believe in God and as far as I am concerned if that makes they happy then it does no one any harm. Whether anyone can 'prove' the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant. Same principle applies to FE.  Some people believe it some don't. Does it really matter?
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.
The people that set up the tech used to communicate with the ISS via live feed would surely know exactly where they are getting their live feed from. Do you believe even these low level workers could be in on the massive conspiracy?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

newhorizons

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2019, 04:11:14 PM »
Quote
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.

And I am of the belief that it is a total waste of time having a conversation with anyone whose refuses to believe anything is real apart from perhaps the air a few inches in front of their face that they are about to breath. Even that I'm sure you will find reason to question exists. Perhaps you could post a list of things you actually accept are real?  It can't be that long. If you can find it within your means, please accept that everything I mention on here is true. I wouldn't knowingly lie or contribute anything to this conversation/discussion or whatever you want to call it that I have any reason to doubt is true and correct. Otherwise what is the point in having a discussion in the first place if you won't believe anything anyone says?

You mention about senses earlier.  Do you believe that colours are real? Because colours are not physically real. They don't physically exist in the physical world. They are just the way our senses (sight) interpret different wavelengths of light.  So in essence colours are entirely a human creation and exist only in our brains.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 04:40:25 PM by newhorizons »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 660
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2019, 05:54:17 PM »
A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.



Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2019, 06:19:23 PM »
The people that set up the tech used to communicate with the ISS via live feed would surely know exactly where they are getting their live feed from. Do you believe even these low level workers could be in on the massive conspiracy?
The people certainly do set up the tech. But that doesn't mean the live feed originates from the ISS. See my statement regarding no visually detectable difference between supposed ISS feeds and the fictional Howard Wolowitz.

Massive conspiracy? Do conspiracies not exist?

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #52 on: August 14, 2019, 06:27:36 PM »
Quote
I am of the belief that having a conversation with someone, even by live feed, does not prove that either party is in the location claimed. Even now, in writing to each other, one or both of us could write down our location and that does not prove the location.

Further, there is no specific video footage of Tim Peake on the ISS that differs from that of Howard Wolowitz while he was portrayed as being on the ISS.

And I am of the belief that it is a total waste of time having a conversation with anyone whose refuses to believe anything is real apart from perhaps the air a few inches in front of their face that they are about to breath. Even that I'm sure you will find reason to question exists. Perhaps you could post a list of things you actually accept are real?  It can't be that long. If you can find it within your means, please accept that everything I mention on here is true. I wouldn't knowingly lie or contribute anything to this conversation/discussion or whatever you want to call it that I have any reason to doubt is true and correct. Otherwise what is the point in having a discussion in the first place if you won't believe anything anyone says?

You mention about senses earlier.  Do you believe that colours are real? Because colours are not physically real. They don't physically exist in the physical world. They are just the way our senses (sight) interpret different wavelengths of light.  So in essence colours are entirely a human creation and exist only in our brains.
Where did I deny your conversation?

I only question your ability to know the actual placement of those on the other end.

You have conversations on a cell phone, perhaps even video calls, but you cannot truly know where the other participant is at the time.

I believe your story and I know you believe your story.

So, having seen a purported live feed, please, if you can, describe the salient differences between that live feed and the scenes of Wolowitz on the ISS.

I have seen both and could not tell a lick of difference between the two.

newhorizons

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #53 on: August 14, 2019, 06:29:26 PM »
Just out of interest have you ever used a telescope to observe the ISS as it passes over you location? I'm not talking about watching videos posted on YouTube produced by many, many amateur astronomers around the world. I'm talking about you actually seeing the ISS, solar panels and all with your eyes through a telescope?   I have and that is one reason why I am personally quite confident that the ISS is a real thing.


The reason why I am quite confident that the link we established was real and genuine and coming from the ISS directly is because as I said in my post, I have a colleague who in turn knows someone who works at the ESA control centre where they have been communicating directly with the ISS and all the astronauts that have ever been on it since it was first established. We could hear audio and see the video in real time. This was not a random thing. It was arranged specially for us. We were extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to have this link up.  No doubts whatsoever that it was genuine.  If you want to disbelieve it then that's up to you.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 06:38:09 PM by newhorizons »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2019, 07:30:15 PM »
Quote
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.

You would not expect to see the curvature of the Earth directly during normal day-to-day would you.  You can't see enough of the Earths surface from ground level. I would have thought that was obvious.

If you were a microbe sitting on a snooker ball you could not have any direct perception that you were sitting on a curved surface. On the other hand if you were a midge or a knat flying past that snooker ball from a distance of a few cm then it would look curved because you would now be able to see the surface from a far enough distance away to see that it was curved. It is a matter of proportion.  The midge analogy is comparable in scale to the ISS orbiting the Earth from 400km up.  Astronauts on the ISS can see a large enough proportion of the Earths surface to see that it is curved and indeed spherical. Of course the FE movement dismiss that along with all other direct evidence of a spherical Earth as fabrication or whatever because it goes against their assertion that the Earth is flat.

Quote
I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

That's absolutely fine. But having an opinion about something doesn't make you right.
I believe it makes me correct in this instance.

Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?

If yes, why?

Yes. Why not? I believe in technological advancement, engineering, math & physics.
Fair enough.
Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity or those of Howard Wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory ?

I don't believe you, or anyone else, could honestly write that.

Big Bang Theory isn't very convincing.
Please specify the differences you see between those of Howard Wolowitz and those of the purported astronauts on the ISS that lead you to believe one is the real deal and the other is just Hollywood.

I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:



But for the blockbusters, I think it would be hard and getting harder by the minute. But I do know the effort involved in creating such things.
One the the FX Supervisors for 'Gravity' said in an interview, “Rendering Gravity on one computer would have taken 7000 years”. I remember reading that one 10 second scene in 'The Martian' where Matt Damen was standing outside, nothing major going on visually except for specific reflections in his visor, took 2 days to render. 

I just can't really conceive of the number of FX artists involved and the amount of computing power required to create the 1000's of hours of ISS footage out there. It's beyond my comprehension how it could be done.
Or, it isn't as hard as they claim and it is getting easier by the minute.

Why the need for FX "artists?" Why not just FX "artist?"

Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?

It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1255
    • View Profile
Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2019, 01:13:49 AM »
A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.



Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?

I'm not sure why you assume a vacuum. But sure, the by far most common atmospheric refractive effect we observe at sunset and sunrise is that the Sun appears just a smidge higher than it actually is which can cause sunrise to occur a minute or two early and sunset a minute or two late. In essence pushing the sun observably higher above a horizon rather than lower, which I suspect, the latter is what you're looking for. So that would look like this:



So why don’t you tell us what sort of atmospheric refractive effect would need to be in play for every sunset observed by humans where the FE Sun would drop down 3000 miles to appear to go below the horizon, hide it there for 12 hours, then release it so that it can appear to rise 3000 miles back up into the sky behind me at sunrise.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #56 on: August 15, 2019, 10:36:08 AM »
Just out of interest have you ever used a telescope to observe the ISS as it passes over you location? I'm not talking about watching videos posted on YouTube produced by many, many amateur astronomers around the world. I'm talking about you actually seeing the ISS, solar panels and all with your eyes through a telescope?   I have and that is one reason why I am personally quite confident that the ISS is a real thing.
No, but that doesn't mean there isn't an object overhead resembling the ISS circling above the flat earth plane.

I do not deny there is such an object.
The reason why I am quite confident that the link we established was real and genuine and coming from the ISS directly is because as I said in my post, I have a colleague who in turn knows someone who works at the ESA control centre where they have been communicating directly with the ISS and all the astronauts that have ever been on it since it was first established. We could hear audio and see the video in real time. This was not a random thing. It was arranged specially for us. We were extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to have this link up.  No doubts whatsoever that it was genuine.  If you want to disbelieve it then that's up to you.
Like I wrote earlier, I have no doubt you were a participant.

I have no doubt a link to somewhere was established, just like the link here.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #57 on: August 15, 2019, 10:42:37 AM »
I don't watch BBT, but looked up some clips yesterday of the Howard character in space. I didn't see anything like this:

Hasn't there been CGI rendered water before?

It seems this has been around a while.

https://www.autodesk.com/redshift/moana-animation/
Sit through the credits next time you watch a movie like The Martian or Gravity. There are a multitude of various FX houses involved each with paragraphs of names credited with working on the effects.
Yeah, there are...

Putting people to work because they are your friends is common practice.

As far as "amount of computing power," I guess I need to know what you mean.

We supposedly now have more computing power in our phone than the total amount used for Apollo, correct?

Are you therefore referring to the amount of gigawatts required?
It's all about rendering. The rotoscopers, shaders, colorists, background/foreground, motion capture, etc., on and on artists all do their part then a scene/clip needs to be rendered. So all of that is sent off to a server farm of racks of CPU's to do so. Like I wrote, that one 10 second scene in The Martian took 2 days to render out. Now extrapolate that out to a 2 hour movie. and for Gravity, there was so much CGI, that's why he said it would have taken 7000 years to render it all out on one computer.
If it was limited to one server farm, perhaps.

There are many server farms.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 12:52:18 PM by totallackey »

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #58 on: August 15, 2019, 11:54:30 AM »
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« Reply #59 on: August 15, 2019, 12:18:29 PM »
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.