[TheTruthIsOnHere]

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.

[Setec Astronomy]

OK, you want curvature! As I said you just have to go high enough.

Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC

Himawari 2016.04.26 11.00 UTC

Yes, about 22,236 miles is pretty good![/b]
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!


And Star Trek's "Genesis" planet!


And perhaps this one from The Little Prince...

[rabinoz]

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.
And before you ask. 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.

Somehow though I don't think anything would satisfy you!

Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC - circle

Looks pretty circular to me. Of course down the bottom right there is a little bit not lit by the sun You can see the sun's reflection just a bit above and to the left of centre.
But as I said before, I couldn't care less what you believe from now on. The most careful explanations get thrown back in my face.

[rabinoz]

OK, you want curvature! As I said you just have to go high enough.

Himawari 2016.04.26 03.30 UTC

Himawari 2016.04.26 11.00 UTC

Yes, about 22,236 miles is pretty good![/b]
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!


And Star Trek's "Genesis" planet!


And perhaps this one from The Little Prince...

Stop being an idiot. 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).

Now come up with some convincing photos of the flat earth! And I won't be convinced by "lack of curvature", unless you are very high.
Come to think of it, come up with ANY convincing evidence of the Flat earth, other than "It looks flat outside my window."

Almost all Flat Earthers seem to subscribe to the reasoning "I can't understand the Globe, that proves the earth must be flat!"

[Rounder]

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 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 aboard these satellites is achieving the full-disk image.  The field of view is wide enough to capture the image in one shot.

[Setec Astronomy]

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?

[rabinoz]

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.

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.

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.

[geckothegeek]

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.

The "exaggerated glow around the perimeter" is most likely the atmosphere.
Now show us some pictures of the so-called "atmoplane" above the so-called "flat earth".
Well.........Just show us some aerial views of the so-called "flat earth".......for a start  !

[geckothegeek]

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.

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.

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.

[Setec Astronomy]

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?

It's disappointing that think people continue to fall for such things even after the inconsistencies are pointed out. But those who do not receive the love of the truth will be sent a strong deluding influence that they will believe a lie (paraphrasing 2 Thessalonians 2:11).

[TotesNotReptilian]

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".

Yes yes, you are so much smarter and open minded than everyone else. Totally unrelated question: what is the standard sarcasm font for this website?

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.

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.

Earth photos with "SEX" written in the clouds?

Ugh, Disney is at it again!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

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

Earth photos with "SEX" written in the clouds?

Ugh, Disney is at it again!

So you're willing to completely dismiss it? I know you're trying to be funny or whatever, and it is troubling that animators at disney did that in a kids cartoon... but it doesn't bother you at all that it's clear as day without sex shaped clouds that a supposedly authentic photograph of the Earth from NASA has the word Sex in the clouds?

[TotesNotReptilian]

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

Wow, excellent examples of buildings disappearing behind the horizon bottom first!

Rough calculation time:

Using the first image, the bottom third of the CN Tower (1800 feet) appears to be obscured. So that's about 600 feet obscured by the horizon. The view was taken from Olcott Beach, 39 miles away.

From this information, we can calculate the height above water level of the person taking the picture: 54 feet. This seems reasonable if they were in a building looking out over the water. Keep in mind, this is without taking into account refraction at all. If we take into account refraction under normal conditions, we would get 9 feet. A reasonable height for someone standing on the beach.

Everything seems to be exactly as expected for a round earth. What's the problem?

Edit: Also, nice use of the classic "here, let me google that for you" response. Subtle, but snarky. I deserved that.
Try using lmgtfy.com or images.lmgtfy.com in the future to really crank up the snarkiness.

[Setec Astronomy]

If you have a link for this view across Lake Ontario, I would appreciate it.

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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

If you have a link for this view across Lake Ontario, I would appreciate it.

[several images of Toronto]

None of these appear to be taken from across Lake Ontario. The first one appears to be taken from very high up in the middle of Lake Ontario. A helicopter perhaps? The second one appears to be taken from the South West somewhere, relatively close. The third seems to be taken from the South from over the water. If you want to prove a point, you need to specify where the picture was taken from, and why it demonstrates a contradiction with the earth being round.

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.

Yep, those are pretty cool. I'm not sure how they are relevant though. None of the first three images demonstrate "fata morgana".

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

How did you come to the assumption that the observer was 54 feet in the air?

[Setec Astronomy]

Rough calculation time:

Using the first image, the bottom third of the CN Tower (1800 feet) appears to be obscured. So that's about 600 feet obscured by the horizon.

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.

The color of a bright sunset sky should be apparent in the water too, like this:

[TotesNotReptilian]

Rough calculation time:

Using the first image, the bottom third of the CN Tower (1800 feet) appears to be obscured. So that's about 600 feet obscured by the horizon.

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.

I literally just grabbed the first image from the search results provided by TheTruthIsOnHere. There are tons more like it.

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.

You literally just said this several posts up:

So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions.

Does the irony of this situation strike you at all?

[Setec Astronomy]

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:

So you reject photographic evidence if it contradicts your preconceived notions.

Does the irony of this situation strike you at all?

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.

[TotesNotReptilian]

How did you come to the assumption that the observer was 54 feet in the air?

Good question.



h_1 = 600 feet (height obscured by the horizon)
h_2 = height of observer
a = distance to horizon from h_1 (600 feet)
b = distance to horizon from h_2 (observer)
R = 20,900,000 feet (radius of earth)
a + b = 39 miles = 205,920 feet

Use this equation for calculating height based on distance to the horizon:

h = R/cos(d/R) - R

Use the inverse of that equation for calculating distance to the horizon based on height:

d = R * cos^-1(R/(R+h))

First calculate a using h_1. Subtract a from 39 miles to get b. Then calculate h_2 using b.

Edit: Be careful about rounding errors. These equations are very sensitive to rounding halfway through the calculation. I suggest putting it all into the calculator in one lump. Make sure your calculator is in radian mode. Better yet, put these equations into an excel spreadsheet so you can do it quickly repeatedly.