*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7158
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2016, 10:14:28 AM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

The RE evidence presented on this forum is often explained by lack of research. There has not been an argument which was not badly flawed.

See the following argument:

I look out the window each day and see the sun setting and know someone further to the east sees it occuring later.  Measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times proves a round earth, as you know.

And who measured these angles?

The flaw in your argument is that you are assuming favorable results for an experiment which may not have occurred. I submit that it probably did not occur. If there were such an experiment, unless it was very recent, believe me, we would be among the first to know about it.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2016, 11:04:20 AM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

The RE evidence presented on this forum is often explained by lack of research. There has not been an argument which was not badly flawed.

See the following argument:

I look out the window each day and see the sun setting and know someone further to the east sees it occuring later.  Measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times proves a round earth, as you know.

And who measured these angles?

The flaw in your argument is that you are assuming favorable results for an experiment which may not have occurred. I submit that it probably did not occur. If there were such an experiment, unless it was very recent, believe me, we would be among the first to know about it.
Yet you can't even come up with a believable explanation for:
Sunrise and sunset.
Moonrise and moonset.
The fact the everyone who can see the moon sees almost exactly the same phase.
The fact that the sun's angular size stays exactly the same (well we'll allow 0.004%) all the time from sunrise to sunset, except for some distortion near the horizon.
Lunar eclipses.
Etc, etc.
So many simple observations, yet they elicit the most convoluted Flat Earth explanations.

Sure, I haven't made all these observations myself, so what?

Yes, I've looked up the Wiki!

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2016, 05:43:12 PM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

I'm the same way with avatars. For example I picture you as a velociraptor. Imamate faceless objects I have no problem with though.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2016, 08:16:00 PM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

The RE evidence presented on this forum is often explained by lack of research. There has not been an argument which was not badly flawed.

It's easy to just make a blanket declaration that they are all flawed, but I can pull up a list of arguments for which no flaw has been pointed out. Would you like me to? You are just talking out of your butt, as usual.

I'm the same way with avatars. For example I picture you as a velociraptor. Imamate faceless objects I have no problem with though.

A thoughtful velociraptor. Don't forget the thoughtful part! You can tell by the way my finger (talon?) is quizzically positioned near my chin.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 08:18:38 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 382
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2016, 08:29:56 PM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

The RE evidence presented on this forum is often explained by lack of research. There has not been an argument which was not badly flawed.

It's easy to just make a blanket declaration that they are all flawed, but I can pull up a list of arguments for which no flaw has been pointed out. Would you like me to? You are just talking out of your butt, as usual.

I'm the same way with avatars. For example I picture you as a velociraptor. Imamate faceless objects I have no problem with though.

A thoughtful velociraptor. Don't forget the thoughtful part! You can tell by the way my finger (talon?) is quizzically positioned near my chin.

Oh yeah. My bad.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7158
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2016, 11:33:31 PM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

The burden of proof is on the Round Earther, as his position is one beyond empirical experience. It's not impossible to post valid evidence, and you may have posted some, I have yet to look at all of your posts, but the burden of proof starts with the Round Earther, which holds regardless of what is true.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2016, 11:55:17 PM »
In actuality if you want evidence of a Flat Earth you simply need to look out your window. If you want evidence of a Round Earth you need to take the military's word for it.

How do you even say this with a straight face? (In my mind I picture you exactly like your profile picture, so I just assume you have a perpetually straight face with a slightly raised eyebrow.) I have personally posted quite a bit of very straightforward evidence that requires absolutely no trust in the military. Others have posted tons of evidence as well that requires no trust in the military. Have you not browsed the forums recently?

On the other hand, the evidence for a flat earth begins and ends with "look out your window". The fact that you even consider this evidence is just evidence of your own personal bias. Any rational person would realize that the earth is way too big to notice any horizontal curvature at ground level, regardless of whether it is round or flat.

The burden of proof is on the Round Earther, as his position is one beyond empirical experience. It's not impossible to post valid evidence, and you may have posted some, I have yet to look at all of your posts, but the burden of proof starts with the Round Earther, which holds regardless of what is true.

So... does this mean you are retracting your statement about needing to relying on the military's word? Or are you just going to pretend you didn't say it?

And honestly, I don't really mind shouldering the burden of proof. It would be way too easy without some kind of massive handicap. That being said, does it really not bother you that you hold your own arguments to a lower standard than those of others?

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2016, 07:10:44 PM »
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but this generation isn't the first to look into Flat Earth. Historically, in most relatively peaceful times, Flat Earth becomes a big thing; but it is always interrupted by war before it can get too far. Not saying WW3 is about to start, but *cough cough cough*

Here is a good example:
http://imgur.com/gallery/miXLb

Auguste Piccard set record heights in the 1930s. From an altitude of 23,000 m (75,459 ft), he reported that the Earth seemed "a flat disk".

And it is true, most videos are recorded with fish eye lens cameras; when the camera looks down, you see a 'frowning curve', when it looks level with the horizon, it is 'flat', and when it looks up, you see a 'smiling curve'.

Ultimately there is currently no real way to make money proving the Flat Earth. And it's no one's job to spoon feed you, whether or not you are genuinely interested. Education simply isn't free, someone has to pay for it somewhere along the line. There are a few high altitude cam videos out there shot without fish eye lens cameras; they all, without exception, show a flat plane.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2016, 08:25:11 PM »
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but this generation isn't the first to look into Flat Earth. Historically, in most relatively peaceful times, Flat Earth becomes a big thing; but it is always interrupted by war before it can get too far. Not saying WW3 is about to start, but *cough cough cough*

I suspect that is because during times of war, there is less time for pondering scientific theories of... ahem... dubious quality. The only research going on is highly practical stuff. One would think that if the earth were ACTUALLY flat, flat earth theories would receive a boon during wartime, considering how important maps are for successful military campaigns.

Quote
There are a few high altitude cam videos out there shot without fish eye lens cameras; they all, without exception, show a flat plane.

Care to link one or two? I've seen flat earthers make this claim before. Every time I actually measure, the claim turns out to be false. For example, the dogcam video. Speaking of measuring, did you bother calculating how much curvature you would expect to see if the earth was round, based on the given altitude and camera?

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2016, 10:10:32 PM »
I suspect that is because during times of war, there is less time for pondering scientific theories of... ahem... dubious quality. The only research going on is highly practical stuff. One would think that if the earth were ACTUALLY flat, flat earth theories would receive a boon during wartime, considering how important maps are for successful military campaigns.

Who gets to say which scientific inquiries are dubious? Depends on who is financing what kind of research, for what reason and to what ends; the funding has to come from somewhere. If Oreo poured money into 'scientifically' proving Oreos were healthy, would that be dubious? I'm not going to argue that. It is impossible to tell if something is dubious without thoroughly investigating it in any case. Most wars in the [previous resurgences of FE movement] have been very localized, in small geographic pockets. Nowadays, with technology such as Aircraft Carriers, Fighter Jets, ICBM, etc, yes that makes sense to know the shape of the world a little better. Though without testing them on 'global' distances, you can't be sure. I'm not bringing VFR/IFR rules into this simple topic though, we already have some of those here discussing flight paths and nautical lines/ocean transport. I like to keep my options open for now until I understand this thing better.

As for practicality. You might have heard of a little Official NASA 1988 publication 1207, Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft manual, which contains the phrases:

"The lack of documentation and, occasionally, understanding of the derivation of linear models is a hindrance to communication, training, and application. This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. [...] By defining the initial conditions (of the nominal trajectory) for straight and level flight and setting the asymmetric aerodynamic and inertia terms to zero, one can easily obtain the more traditional linear models from the linear model derived in this report." - Introduction, p6.

"This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth. Both generalized and standard linear system equations are derived from nonlinear six-degree-of-freedom equations of motion and a large collection of nonlinear observation (measurement) equations. This derivation of a linear model is general and makes no assumptions on either the reference (nominal) trajectory about which the model is linearized or the symmetry of the vehicle mass and aerodynamic properties." - Concluding remarks, p35.

Well, I guess investigating flat earth geometry isn't practical!

Care to link one or two? I've seen flat earthers make this claim before. Every time I actually measure, the claim turns out to be false. For example, the dogcam video. Speaking of measuring, did you bother calculating how much curvature you would expect to see if the earth was round, based on the given altitude and camera?

I was just offering an answer to the question. Youtube is so inundated with GoPro fish eye lense cameras now it's hard. I did look to try to find a few as an example, but the first 25 results I got were all fish eye lens. Literally. The first 25. I gave up. Feel free to search "High altitude balloon" and see for yourself. In any case, Field of View has to be taken into consideration, even if it appears 'flat'. Just because it looks flat doesn't mean it is. Though the overwhelming amount of fish eye lenses is somewhat odd.

Like I said, I'm not spoon feeding. I just offered what I offered, no more, no less. Though Kerbal space program is a nice tool to demonstrate how much curvature there should be. 8 inches to the mile squared is what wikipedia says for a spherical Earth. Most (decent human beings) show the altitude in their videos, or even mention it in the title. Not too hard to figure out the expected curve if you have (an accurate bearing on) the altitude. Though, to be fair, as I said, I don't know to what extent and Field of View mechanics should be included to interpret such an equation. I'm still learning about perspective.

I'm not one to say "this is how it is". I will kindly point the right way to find for yourself (though I may be snide), but I ain't gonna say "here's what you should think about it". Unless I happen to think it's funny at the moment.  ;D

Also, Watch the earth smile here @ 2:57! This is what I mean by 'fish eye lens cameras' for those who don't know. Understand if I sound frustrated this is why. Of course I could use a non-fish eye lens myself, though I'm beginning to think maybe you can't get a permit for that anymore!

EDIT: I think I found a non-fish eye lens clip here. It's a 2+ hour sunrise video, low quality camera, but I'm seeing what could be measurable curvature. This is a first for me! I learned something today, maybe. Check here. He claims it may have reaches at least ~117,000 (feet I assume). He also mentions that this launch had a 'top view' camera, which he is currently uploading (a 30 gb file). I'm not sure if it's non-fish eye, it doesn't seem to ever go low or high enough angle to tell. 2:28:57 there appears to be curvature. Shortly after, you see the 'mound' of darkness on the horizon, where the 'night time' is retreating. Also, note that your field of view is a circle. So, it is all too easy to write off the field of view as the 'curvature'.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2016, 11:25:06 PM by nametaken »
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2016, 02:12:55 AM »
Good point. It was merely my assertion that it is dubious, which certainly doesn't make it true. Here is slightly fairer wording of the point I was trying to make that I think we can agree on:

Amateur science tends to stop during wartime, because the amateurs tend to get drafted. Flat earth "science" is quite exclusively an amateur pursuit. As you said, there isn't much money in it.

Well, I guess investigating flat earth geometry isn't practical!

I actually said that it WOULD be practical, if the earth is indeed flat. So... we agree?

Anyway, the linear aircraft manual isn't hinting that the earth is flat. It is merely stating that there is no point in taking account the curvature of the earth while deriving the equations of motion of an aircraft. Because the earth is really big, and most aircraft don't go fast enough for it to matter. You could of course take into account the curvature and rotation of the earth, but all it will do is complicate the derivation. The final numbers that it would spit out are virtually identical. Which is why they they don't bother.

Though the overwhelming amount of fish eye lenses is somewhat odd.

Not at all. There are several reasons why they all use wide angle lens.

1. Stability. The camera on a balloon won't be as stable as a camera on a tripod. Wide angle lens make the shaking much less noticeable.
2. Depth of field. No one is up there to focus the camera. A narrow lens requires precise focus.
3. Aim. No one is up there to aim the camera. A narrow lens requires precise aim. A wide angle lens.... eh... general direction of the horizon is good enough.

The trade off of course is the optical distortion. Since most people aren't trying to prove the shape of the earth with these videos, they don't really care about the distortion.

Quote
EDIT: I think I found a non-fish eye lens clip here. It's a 2+ hour sunrise video, low quality camera, but I'm seeing what could be measurable curvature. This is a first for me! I learned something today, maybe. Check here. He claims it may have reaches at least ~117,000 (feet I assume). He also mentions that this launch had a 'top view' camera, which he is currently uploading (a 30 gb file). I'm not sure if it's non-fish eye, it doesn't seem to ever go low or high enough angle to tell. 2:28:57 there appears to be curvature. Shortly after, you see the 'mound' of darkness on the horizon, where the 'night time' is retreating. Also, note that your field of view is a circle. So, it is all too easy to write off the field of view as the 'curvature'.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but at the beginning he lists the cameras as GoPro Hero 3/4 Silver/Black. 5.4mm lens. I think that equates to a 140 degree horizontal FOV for the Silver, which is pretty wide. :(

FOV = 2*arctan((sensor width / 2) / focal length)

Practically the exact same math as from the other thread about perspective! Coincidence...?

One way to eliminate optical distortion as a culprit is to measure the curvature twice. Once when the horizon is on the bottom half of the picture, once when it is on the top half of the picture. If they are curved in opposite directions, you can definitely attribute it to distortion. If they are curved in the same direction, it probably isn't optical distortion. Probably.

Edit: Posted early. Weird. Added the second half of my reply.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 02:31:57 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2016, 02:53:52 AM »
Oops! Correction to my last post: Apparently the 5.4mm GoPro lens is a rectilinear lens, with an approximately 60 degree FOV. I must have misread the sensor size. This means there is probably minimal (if any) barrel distortion, and any curvature you see in that video is probably legit.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: Genuine Question
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2016, 05:44:59 AM »
Good point. It was merely my assertion that it is dubious, which certainly doesn't make it true. Here is slightly fairer wording of the point I was trying to make that I think we can agree on:

Amateur science tends to stop during wartime, because the amateurs tend to get drafted. Flat earth "science" is quite exclusively an amateur pursuit. As you said, there isn't much money in it.

Understood. I just thought it was funny military industrial complex (or at least NASA) got that frustrated. That wording was exquisite;D They literally said "F it" as intellectually as possible in the Synopsis  :)

Anyway, the linear aircraft manual isn't hinting that the earth is flat.

I know, didn't mean to apply it was. I was just illustrating even in war times FE geometry has practical applications, though I don't really know how to make any money on it otherwise.

Depth of field.

The trade off of course is the optical distortion. Since most people aren't trying to prove the shape of the earth with these videos, they don't really care about the distortion.

Dang it I've been trying to work DoF into an argument for a while. I don't know much about it (other than from a 'video game design standpoint'). I had a basic understanding of these principles, but never thought of it such explicit terms.

So you basically answered the initial question here. Hard to get stability up there, with all the rotating. Most use go-pros, which have fish eye lenses for focus at cost of accurate curvature. Then there's *boring* the math lel.

Anyway I've never seen that dark patch receding at that altitude before. That was still an interesting video for that. I didn't know the darkness peels back like a scab or something and hangs on the horizon at sunrise... Nor do I think I saw and sundogs or anticrepuscular rays at that altitude. Hmmm... that might have some bearing on that other theory of p-brane? I think you know to which I'm referring...

Thanks for clarifying the camera, I didn't even think to look it up. I assumed it was a sort of budget go-pro. 2:31:00 just for reference (look if you want). The 'ring of light' with the 'darker eye' above, might be an interesting and useful observation for later studies. I'm assuming this is the form 'crepuscular rays' or 'sundogs' take at that altitude for now, but I assume there is a simpler more obvious explanation.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.