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

Page 8 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

06 May 2016, 4:46 pm

slenkar wrote:
Re: the moon landings

When the astronauts took off from the moon they had to meet with a module that was orbiting the moon and dock with it,
this doesn't seem possible,especially with 60's tech, to launch at the exact time and do all the manouvers.


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



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,197
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

06 May 2016, 7:52 pm

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.

Ban-Dodger wrote:
Haytham wrote:
Physics can't support a flat-earth concept. The very idea that of the earth being flat isn't even possible.

Quantum-Physics actually manages to be able to support such concepts as possibilities. Even if rejected by main-streamists.

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.

Ban-Dodger wrote:
Haytham wrote:
Furthermore, for those who don't like science very much (which "Flat-earthers" seem to oppose science), every celestial body we know of in space is round or round-ish.

Have you ever considered that, anything that gives off a light-source, will always appear round from a distance, even if the object itself is not a sphere ? I have seen plenty of aero-planes fly through the sky at night before, and possible other things, and the light that it gives off certainly appears spherical, but the air-craft itself from which the light-source is originating is not itself a sphere. Just because you see a light at a distance does not automatically make the object emitting said light into a round sphere.
The glow of aircraft seen during night come from spotlights; it's not like the entire aircraft is glowing.


Haytham wrote:
Earth is closer to an egg shape, than spherical.

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...

Ban-Dodger wrote:
Haytham wrote:
Having been a seafarer (and still am at heart), I understand nautical navigation and the necessary understandings of the tides, etc. That said, there is no way the earth is flat.

Alas, I have also come across sea-farers who have come to conclude that flat-earth theory (some of it anyway), actually has more validity than globe-earth theory (assuming that they are not sock-puppet accounts of course). Additionally, I have come across comments from star-gazers, who have observed the skies since they were little, and they have pondered the evidence, and have become skeptical that this earth is a ball that is spinning as fast as claimed by the so-called science-books (combine the speeds/rotations of earth, orbits, galaxies, stars, solar-systems, etc., then compare what it's supposed to look like when you're watching the distance from out the side of the window of an air-plane that's flying in a straight line, versus how the surroundings/distance actually looks like when spinning from the edge of a merry-go-round).


Ban-Dodger wrote:
Haytham wrote:
Having been a seafarer (and still am at heart), I understand nautical navigation and the necessary understandings of the tides, etc. That said, there is no way the earth is flat.

Alas, I have also come across sea-farers who have come to conclude that flat-earth theory (some of it anyway), actually has more validity than globe-earth theory (assuming that they are not sock-puppet accounts of course). Additionally, I have come across comments from star-gazers, who have observed the skies since they were little, and they have pondered the evidence, and have become skeptical that this earth is a ball that is spinning as fast as claimed by the so-called science-books (combine the speeds/rotations of earth, orbits, galaxies, stars, solar-systems, etc., then compare what it's supposed to look like when you're watching the distance from out the side of the window of an air-plane that's flying in a straight line, versus how the surroundings/distance actually looks like when spinning from the edge of a merry-go-round).

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.

naturalplastic wrote:
Gosh!

If the earth is a flat disk (like all of these modern flat earthers claim) then....

Whats on the flip side?

Is there a whole nother world on the tail side?

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



mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

06 May 2016, 8:02 pm

Quote:
objects do look like they are going behind the horizon but its an iilusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFhhCYYkILw

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:
Image

Quote:
You may know about lenses but you have to admit its extremely misleading to use fisheye lenses at high altitudes when it completely gives a false impression. It is like looking into a fairground mirror, and your explanation of just looking at a part of the mirror makes no sense.
The average person has almost no knowledge of lenses and the mythbusters and Felix Baumgartener footage both give an obvious false impression.

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.

Quote:
could you provide a link to the PBS documentary with footage from 100,000 feet?

Why a PBS documentary? You are not making sense.

Quote:
This video is suppsoed to be at around 100,000 feet and the horizon looks quite flat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

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.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,813
Location: temperate zone

06 May 2016, 8:08 pm

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".



mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

06 May 2016, 8:48 pm

Image
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.

Image
I will address this one in a moment.

Image
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.

Image
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:

Image
Image

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.

Image
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.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

06 May 2016, 8:49 pm

slenkar wrote:
Re: the moon landings

When the astronauts took off from the moon they had to meet with a module that was orbiting the moon and dock with it,
this doesn't seem possible,especially with 60's tech, to launch at the exact time and do all the manouvers.

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.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

07 May 2016, 12:00 am

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:

Quote:
A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image


http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fishe ... underwater
Quote:
What is a fisheye lens?

A fisheye lens is a special type of ultra-wide angle lens. They are small, ultra-wide, and show a distorted, spherical view of the world, most evident in the curved, outer corners of the photo.



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

Shots with straight lines where you don't want to see any curves


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.

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,506
Location: Soul Society

07 May 2016, 12:07 am

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'.


_________________
comedic burp


mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

07 May 2016, 1:24 am

slenkar wrote:
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:
Quote:
A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image


http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fishe ... underwater
Quote:
What is a fisheye lens?

A fisheye lens is a special type of ultra-wide angle lens. They are small, ultra-wide, and show a distorted, spherical view of the world, most evident in the curved, outer corners of the photo.



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

Shots with straight lines where you don't want to see any curves


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.

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:
Image
Image

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

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.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,819
Location: S.F Bay Area

07 May 2016, 6:53 pm

mikeman7918 wrote:
slenkar wrote:
Re: the moon landings

When the astronauts took off from the moon they had to meet with a module that was orbiting the moon and dock with it,
this doesn't seem possible,especially with 60's tech, to launch at the exact time and do all the manouvers.

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.


I've got to ask...KSP? :wink:

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


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

07 May 2016, 10:14 pm

Edenthiel wrote:
I've got to ask...KSP? :wink:

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


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

09 May 2016, 12:22 am

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.



mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

09 May 2016, 1:04 am

Quote:
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.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,819
Location: S.F Bay Area

09 May 2016, 1:11 am

mikeman7918 wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
I've got to ask...KSP? :wink:

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


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


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,146
Location: here

09 May 2016, 3:18 pm

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:

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

Image
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:
Image

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,