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

Post Reply New Topic

Well obviously the Mythbusters guys used a fish eye lens because they are part of the 2500 year long global conspiracy to surpress the flat earth.ROTFLMFAO!

But obviously the horizon is gonna be at eye level on the surface of a large sphere.

What are you talking about?
Nobody is "assuming" anything.

If the planet were a flat disc with the north pole at its center, and with south pole NOT being a point on the opposite side of the globe, but being the entire round circumference and outer of the edge of a flat disc shaped Earth then gravity would have to pull everything on the planet toward the planet's center of mass which would be the central point of the planet beneath the North Pole. How else could gravity act?

Last edited by naturalplastic on 12 Apr 2016, 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And the Earth was created only a bit over two thousand years ago, and dinosaurs and humans lived together, only humans called them dragons, and Jesus actually rode on one.

I was just tell my mother this afternoon how there are still people who probably think the world is flat. The coincidence is freaky.

They did used what may had been a fish eye lens, just not where you think. Just check at 5:43 to 5:45; they used a fish eye lens in the cockpit, precisely the same place that also taken the picture in which the horizon appear flat at high attitude. The earth in it appear not curved not because the earth is flat, but because the curvature is negated from the lens curvature.

Yes the cockpit camera is also a fisheye lens, are you saying the other cameras are NOT?

The horizon is curved at 5:43 because it is near the top of the image, fisheye lenses dont distort things in the middle.

The plane was pointing upwards at 5:43 so the horizon was near the top.
E.g.

Almost perfectly flat horizon with almost perfectly centered horizon


But when the horizon is off center?


Felix baumgartener at 127,000 feet! The curve is identical to the image above!!

According to Bishop Ussher creation took place on Oct 6, 4004 b.c.e. at six in the evening.

That image of Felix was shown to the entire world,but not once was anyone told it was a distorted image.
Filming something of scientific interest with a lens that distorts things.....

If you go on YouTube you can see his helmet camera footage, the horizon gets curved concave and convex, because he was spinning around.

Obviously we can't rely on any camera in that film clip to show us what shape the horizon was at any point in the flight. Any point where the horizon looks straight could be a distortion, and any point were it looks curved could be a distortion.

The guy does exclaim that "the horizon is curved".

But besides that vocalization there is no evidence.

So is your whole belief in the Earth being flat based upon this one moment in Mythbusters? Or do you have some other reason for thinking that the Earth is flat?

Can you think of a reason distorting lenses are always used to film something scientific?
And the use of the lenses is never revealed?


Chicago can be seen from Michigan but they call it a mirage
http://www.abc57.com/story/28925566/mir ... -shoreline
You can argue about the mirage but the story actually reveals something else
If you are not capable of seeing a skyscraper from sixty miles away then the horizon should be curved when you look at it from ground level, just think about it for a minute, the horizon should suffer the same dropoff you get when you look forwards.
The horizon in that photograph covers more than sixty miles but it's perfectly straight.
It should curve as much as a skyscraper from left to right.
Or if you want to argue and say the horizon in the photograph only covers 30 miles,well the horizon should be curved to half the height of a skyscraper.
If you go up to 30,000ft in a airplane the horizon would represent hundreds of miles but is still perfectly flat.

When you look at airplane routes on a regular map they don't make sense, e.g.London to Arizona, it is a curved flight path
On a flat earth map it is a straight line.
All of the flight paths ive seen curve upwards like this


Notice how the flight goes close to Russia and alaska for no reason?

On a flat earth that would be a straight line from the west coast to china

Notice how if you go from the West coast to China on the flat earth map you also go past Alaska?

you're talking about "great circle routes".

An airline route that looks like a longer route on a flat map may actually be shortest possible route.

Keep in mind that most flat maps of the world are centered on the equator (usually where the equator crosses the Prime Meridian off the coast of Africa). But your flat earth picture is centered on the north pole.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line (obviously).

The trouble is this: a "straight line" on a globe of the Earth is not always the same as a straight line a flat map of the Earth.

If you wanna fly from say Atlanta Georgia to London England, and you plot that route on the surface of a round globe then obviously you will trace a straight line across the Atlantic on that globe.

But if you project that globe onto a flat map the line you drew between Atlanta and London will probably NOT be a straight line, but will likely appear as a long curving arc across the Atlantic. Even though it would in reality be the shortest possible route between the two cities -on a flat map it might appear to be a longer route with extra miles because of the distortions of projecting a round globe onto a flat map.Conversely a route drawn directly on a flat map connecting the two cities with a straight line might actually not be the shortest route.

These airline routes you see that are curved on flat maps, but are really shorter (both on globes, and in reality) are called "great circle routes".

Your LA to Hong Kong thing is probably partially a great circle route that looks longer on a conventional map, but is actually shorter on both a globe and in reality. There maybe other factors for a commerical flight as well-like keeping the plane near the shore (it may have to stop on dry land and refuel somewhere en route).

Also your flat earth picture is centered on the north pole. So it probably mimics the greater distance accuracy of a round globe over the distance accuracy of most conventional flat maps (which center on where the equator intersects with the prime meridian) for travel distances at the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time I can see that it causes greater distortion of distances on the planet south of the equator- its even more distorted than most conventional flat maps are for the southern hemisphere. So I am guessing that your map may mimic a globe in accurately showing great circle routes as straight lines - for trips in the northern part of the northern hemisphere.


But if you wanna fly from New Zealand to Cape Horn (ie travel between points in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere) you would use an equivalent map centered at the south pole in Antarctica, and NOT use your flat earth picture.

Lines that plot straight on a flat map are called "rhumb lines". Some rhumb lines are the same as the great circle routes (the equator is both a rhumb line and a great circle). But as you move away from the equator, and as you move toward the poles, AND as you move at a greater slant relative to the poles and equator (change latitudes and longitudes) the greater the differences are between the rhumb line route and the great circle route.

The rhumb line route from New York to Hong Kong is 9700 nautical miles, but the great circle route between the two cities is only 7000 nautical miles. This even though the shorter route looks like a longer curved route on most flat world maps, and the longer rhumb line would be the direct straight line on most maps.

If you keep traveling in one direction, you will eventually end up back where you started in either direction. This proves the world is round. Good lord its not that hard to figure it out. This also applies traveling across Antarctica to the other side heading north all the way across the Pacific or Atlantic across the Arctic Ocean passing the North pole and then heading back south to the starting point of Antarctica. You will discover there is no edge to fall off.

You can go east or west around the world or cross the north pole on a flat map that centers on the north pole.
If someone can say they have flown over the South Pole then flat earth would seem to be disproved.

There are still questions as to why wide angle lenses are not used at high altitudes when it is a scientific curiosity and where a distortion lens is totally inappropriate. Why the horizon never seems to curve even though a skyscraper is under the earth at 60miles distance.
Even at 70,000ft the horizon is at eye level even though the earth is supposed to curve down.

The flights at the southern hemisphere take even weirder routes.

They use a wide angle lense so you the viewer can see the whole scene without the pilot holding the camera and having to pan around.

Dont see the relevence of anything else in this post.

So you can go east or west on a flat map centered on the north pole. So what? I never said that you couldnt. What does that have to do with anything?

Many folks have both walked across Antarctica crossing at the south pole, and have flown across the south pole as well.

Why would the horizon look any different at 70 thousand feet anyway? Its only 14 miles up (less than three times the hieght of Mount Everest). At a distance of 14 mile distance from the surface of a sphere that's 8000 miles in diameter the horizon is not going to look all that different that it does from standing on the earth.

And...have you ever heard of something called "the space program"? Astronauts have been taking snap shots of the earth for over half of a century, and as have unmanned satellites. Astronauts go a lot higher than 14 miles ( I hear tell a few even got to the moon, and photographed the earth from the moon at a distance of quarter of a million miles), and astronaut and satellite pics show the earth as being a sphere.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 13 Apr 2016, 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The world is not flat, I have proven it, don't believe me?Demonstrate it, it has been proven time and time again since Magellen as well as by NASA and we also have photographic proof! The world is round, get it? Round! It revolves around the sun and not the other way around! Still dont believe me and feel convinced then do the one direction trick for a long time and I will assure you, you will be back where you started! Flat Earth is bunk! If I was wrong you would fall off the edge already, go back to college. Dont take it as a personal attack about the going back to college thing, I would recommend taking astronomy and they will tell you the same about the world being round, still dont go back to college to learn? Then traverse in one direction consistently to see if the Earth has an edge!

I've said this about six times but I'm going to have to repeat it again

Wide angle and fish eye lenses are two separate things!

Fisheye lenses do show a wider angle than a regular lens,
BUT there is no reason to use them when you could use a wide angle lens!!

The earth may be 8000 miles in diameter but when you are on a sphere the ground falls away from you at quite a rate,the horizon should not always be at eye level, if a skyscraper is underground at sixty miles distance thats quite a dropoff!

So what?

If a skyscraper drops below the horizon it still doesnt change the shape of the horizon.

Why wont you answer my question?

What exactly do you expect the horizon to look like 14miles/70,000 feet up?

Exactly much would it differ in appearence from the horizon as it looks from standing on the ground?