I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Post Reply New Topic

Why? Do you actually understand the dynamics or are you just speculating?

Of your Saturn pictures only two or three are actually photographs, and the Voyager 2 one was shot with a television camera, which is crappy. (Back in the 70s the technology that is used today for digital camera was still in it's infancy and as they likely will never come back to Earth the Voyagers probes couldn't use film, so they had to use television camera to sent back data.) At least two of the pictures are artistic interpretation. As for the last picture the sunlight is going through rings made of ice rocks, thus the pretty glow and part of it been reflected on the dark side of the planet.

How? And do you really know what is quantum physic? Outside of quantum woo.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo Not that it matter anyway, as physicians are still trying to figure out how to mix quantum physic with gravity; so quantum physic has nothing to say on the matter.

The glow of aircraft seen during night come from spotlights; it's not like the entire aircraft is glowing.



I have heard plenty of claims ranging from globe, ball, sphere, egg-shaped, including that of pear-shaped, elongated spheroid, hollow, concave, etc. Pear-shaped and elongated spheroid comes from "official" sources by the way. Not only that, I forgot to mention, but Physics has also made this "official" declaration that the Universe is Flat...[/quote]
Doubtful you understand what a flat Universe mean...




Some astronomical phenomenon like retrograde motion are hard to visualise, thus some peoples may be confused by them; yet only a round Earth orbiting the Sun can properly explain them.


We are simply not ready for the horrors on the other side...

I see a distinct lack of math, experiments, or sources of any kind explaining the assertions they made that go against every known rule of photography and optics. The reason you can't see small things form far away is because they are too small in your field of view, it's not because light from them stops reaching you. In theory it's possible to read the markings on a penny form across a city with a phone camera given a long enough exposure (which would have to be pretty darn long), and I could prove my reasoning using real science which you yourself can replicate and calculations that you yourself can check if you want me to.

Also, explain this:



Your definition of a "fisheye lens" appears to be any camera that causes distortion, in which case every camera ever made or that ever could be made is a fisheye lens. The closest thing to a non-fisheye lens under that definition is a narrow angle lens, and one could argue that it's deceiving because it makes the subtle curvature harder to see and makes the Earth look more flat. Again though, it's possible to figure out the true curvature given a bit of knowledge about optics.


Why a PBS documentary? You are not making sense.


The camera doesn't move around much in that image, so unless I knew the exact specifications of the camera I couldn't determine the horizon's true curvature. If the horizon intercepts the center of the image then we know that it's true curvature is shown because the lens only adds or removes curvature if the horizon is above or below the center. Also, if the camera is pointing strait forward 90 degrees from down then the horizon will always look flat no matter what it's true curvature is, and that is also the only time the horizon would ever appear flat regardless of the shape of the Earth. In your video the horizon looked flat yet it was below "eye level" as flat earthers like to call it, and this means that there is likely true curvature present, although again I would need to know the exact specifications of the camera to be sure.

The middle Saturn pic is obviously a painting, and obviously meant to be taken as an artist's conception.

The bottom one is actually a composite of 165 photographs taken over a three hour period by the Cassini probe in 2006 that takes in infared, and ultraviolet, as well as, visible light. Not meant to be understood as a normal snapshot of how the planet looks to the human eye at a given moment. So there is no point in studying "it's shadows".

This is an artist conception, and nobody ever said it was real. Even the URL makes it clear that it's a screenshot from some software.


I will address this one in a moment.


Again, this is an artist conception. At least provide images that NASA claims to be photos, don't just google "Saturn" and post the first few images that pop up. Just because fake images of Saturn exist (and are openly called fake by the creators) doesn't mean that all images of Saturn are fake. If you can provide any evidence of NASA calling this image real then I will become a flat earther on the spot.


This looks different from the second image because the two were taken with different cameras. Just look at these two image of the white house:




They look about as different as those Saturn images. I know that the white house is real though because I have been to Washington DC and seen it in person. Different cameras with different color balances and different amounts of quality can change a lot.


This makes a lot of sense if you know some stuff about light. I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm board I study the lighting in the room I'm in and try to understand why every shadow is the way it is by tracing where the light is coming from and what it's bouncing off of. This makes perfect sense to me though, and I will explain why.

Light can bounce off of things and light up other things, this is something that any non-blind person should know. The Moon can reflect light from the Sun and light things up a bit here on Earth. It happens all the time. The planet is being lit up because light is bouncing off the rings, which clearly diffuse a lot of light. The lighting patterns on the "surface" of Saturn is consistent with this.

The haze around Saturn is always there, it's just that it's usually not visible with the exposure times used to photograph the lit side of the planet. It's the same reason why stars are not visible in images of planets like the three genuine ones above. It's the same thing going on when you can't see many stars in a city yet when you are in the middle of nowhere you can see them better, all that changes is the lighting in your environment and your eyes adjust accordingly.

As for the light going through the rings, Saturn's rings are actually translucent. In most images they appear opaque but that's because they are being brightly lit and what's behind them is dark. The best way to demonstrate this yourself is by using a window. In the day when it's bright on both sides of it you can see out just fine although you can make out your reflection, in the night when you have the interior lights on you can barely see out though because your reflection is overpowering the light coming in even though the reflection is the same absolute brightness as it was before. If you turn off the interior lights then you can see out again. The same thing is going on here, the rings are hard to see through because the light they diffuse overpowers anything behind them but a lot of light still does cruise right through them undisturbed, which is why you can see the light coming through them.

I've pulled it off in multiple different realistic space flight simulators before, it's really rather easy once you know what your doing. They didn't have to be too exact, in fact I have done maneuvers like that with very minimal flight instrumentation before by eyeballing it. It takes longer and uses more fuel then doing it with the proper instrumentation, but I could create a (rather rudimentary) program to do that kind of thing myself if I wanted to with my current knowledge and skills.

What are you basing your assumption off of? I have been obsessing over such things for 12 years now and I have a very in depth knowledge on how stuff like this works, so I think I am more qualified then you. If you want I could go through all the math behind it and prove how it's possible (and rather easy) given only Newtonian laws of motion and gravity, but it would take a while.

You keep trying to say that using a fisheye lens is just as good as any other, but this goes against every source of information on the subject

wikipedia:

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fishe ... underwater



Looks like there is another type of lens which is known for a lack of distortion
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fishe ... underwater


The fact that youve been trying to tell me that a fisheye lens is just as good as any other when every source of information contradicts you and is easily available with a few seconds of research tells me you have an axe to grind and are trying to defend an ideology.

Last edited by slenkar on 07 May 2016, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Is this a joke? The earth isn't flat or it would have been destroyed by mass extinction events long ago.
Not to mention there is an opposite side to every point on the planet, and the tides would not even work because of the resistance of getting past the edge of the 'pancake'.

Your link provides the perfect way for me to prove my point. Here are two images from your source, one taken with a fisheye lens and one taken by a more normal one which supposedly causes no distortion:



Here is the "undistorted" one with a perfectly strait red line running along that rail, which should be strait too in an undistorted image:



That rail is clearly not perfectly strait in that image, curvature is being added that isn't there in reality so therefore the image is still distorted. My point still stands, all photos have distortion.

I've got to ask...KSP?

Slenkar:

Regarding getting to the moon via 1960's tech; slide rules actually would be adequate to plot the trajectories & make fuel & thrust calculations especially since accurate mathematical models had been made, tested and adjusted years earlier. But they didn't just have slide rules, by 1965 the IBM System/360 was available and proved quite useful. Computing history *might* just be a special interest of mine...

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/apollo/

https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/systemz/entry/the_45_anniversary_of_the_moon_landing_the_ibm_mainframe?lang=en_us

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/apollo/breakthroughs/

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/50-years-ago-ibm-created-mainframe-that-helped-bring-men-to-the-moon/

http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Apollo-11-The-computers-that-put-man-on-the-moon

That's one of them. I've also used Orbiter a lot.

The fisheye lens picture is distorted by an incredible amount and the other picture is negligibly distorted,but the one lens which causes the absolute unrealistic amount of extreme distortion is used,
when other wide angle lenses are available.

Any amount of distortion at all is absolutely unrealistic because it doesn't happen outside of photos, all wide angle lenses create a non-negligible distortion (the "non-distorted" images you linked to were all narrow angle), and there are plenty of high altitude photos and videos taken with narrower angle cameras.

Also, the only people that could be fooled by such a thing are people who know very little about photography (AKA not me). I have previously mentioned some ways to detect the true curvature of the horizon independent of distortion, show me a high altitude video (preferable one where the camera moves around a lot) and I will show you the true curvature, which I assure you is present because the Earth we live on is very round. I will let you pick the video.

Ooooh, pretty...I like it! And I'm sure my oldest child will, too. Thank you, so much!

I noticed something new about the mythbusters U2 Video
They seem to set it up so that the horizon is more distorted the higher they go:


The horizon is just above the middle of the image so minimal distortion, but still enough to curve it a little


When they go higher they show the horizon curved more, but its higher in the image so you get more barrel distortion.


Compare where the tip of the wing is compared to the horizon in both images.
The plane is tilting more in the more distorted images

Its weird how they distort the image more,the more altitude they get isnt it???

But at the same height the horizon is perfectly flat in the internal camera:


The average person doesnt know what a fisheye lens is, and is even less likely to know that things appear more curved the further away from the middle of the image they are,

Yes, it's clear that they did that to exaggerate Earth's curvature because it looks more epic that way. I also have a fake image of Earth that I made as my avatar, but that doesn't prove flat Earth either. I am asking for a video where the camera moves around a lot because that way I can properly account for lens distortion and show you the true curvature.