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

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
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: 2,820
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: 2,820
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,



mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

09 May 2016, 6:27 pm

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.


_________________
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


Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,381
Location: Missouri

11 May 2016, 8:08 pm

People all around the globe believe the world is flat.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,275
Location: temperate zone

11 May 2016, 9:48 pm

Cash__ wrote:
People all around the globe believe the world is flat.


And wiseguys like you come from all four corners of the Earth! :D

[just kidding]



slenkar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 May 2016, 12:16 am

Here's one that doesn't use a fisheye lens


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

And one with fisheye that moves a lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EABQ5psUz70



SpaceAgeBushRanger
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 216

12 May 2016, 1:06 am

How do explain mountains, then?



Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1022
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

12 May 2016, 10:07 am

Before I comment on some of the replies of this thread, I just want to tell you guys that I really appreciate the responses you have given so far, for it has been far more respectful than what would typically be encountered elsewhere when engaging and discussing such a topic like this, plus it really does feel like we have some of the brightest minds in the world right here with whom to interact. Anyway, with that having been said, please allow me to see what other great information I can learn from you guys... I now proceed with some of my own responses/questions/commentaries...

mikeman7918 wrote:
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.

Just have to comment that simulations will always check out according to mathematical models when the simultations are based on models of mathematics. I have played racing car games where some of those counter-steering stunts certainly "checked out" and coincided with real-world race-car driving maneuvers, however, I still managed to do things in real-world driving that completely defied what those otherwise very accurate simulators predicted/demonstrated.
mikeman7918 wrote:
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.

I did try to find images that were claimed to be real actually. I most certainly did not put CGI into the search-terms. Perhaps you can find more realistic-looking images than I did ?

Actually, you would not, nobody changes belief solely because of one single anomaly. Lots of skeptics of the para-normal have made the same claims only to end up concocting bizarre reasons as to why some anomaly or even replicable experiments are somehow invalid (all have been refuted if one actually looks critically and objectively enough at all of the available information/evidence of course). Sometimes they even go as far as to say that X or whatever is not evidence (anyway, I assure you, switching to Flat-Earthing is not an on-the-spot process, but a gradual one if at all).
mikeman7918 wrote:
This looks different from the second image because the two were taken with different cameras.

I will look more into this later but I will be returning to examining the things closer to the surface of earth for now.
mikeman7918 wrote:
The Moon can reflect light from the Sun and light things up a bit here on Earth.

What makes the moon's surface so reflective ? Usually a flat or mirror-like surface, such as the surface of waters, are required for a full-surface reflection, rather than only one point or wide laser-like-line being reflected ?
mikeman7918 wrote:
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.

Actually, math will always check out if you base your model on the mathematics, therefore your ability to show that mathematical equations check out is not in question. I think we can all trust that your mathematics is accurate.

What I think we really need is to be able to come up with some experimental-designs where we can test things for ourselves. I think we should start first with the tests that can be done on the surface of the planet, then as we get answers that even lay-people can see/do/witness for themselves, expand the experiments further and further away from the earth's surface.

One of the first things would be in relation to the common claim/belief that ships will sink/disappear over the horizon when sailing out to sea. Actually, this has been put to question, mainly because there seem to be time-lapse videos where people zoom in with high-range telescopes of ships that have sailed out to hundreds of miles away, only to still be visible. Therefore, for purposes of testing to see if those videos are legitimate or created via CGI, I think the experiment to set up an infra-red camera, recording on time-lapse, with a high-powered telescope, tracking and measuring the movement/distance of ships would be a good experiment to be able to answer this question more definitively.

Another thing that has been brought up are in regards to the rotations of the stars in the sky. When I look at time-lapse footage of the stars in the sky, and really look at how the stars are moving across the sky, the movements really do look like the sky itself is rotating rather than following the movements of what I would expect if the earth were spinning. I don't really have a good set-up to test this yet and, like I mentioned before, computer software simultations are always going to check out according to mathematical models due to being based on those models.

The "best" experimental-design that I can think of right now in regards to the above paragraph is to create a large room, perhaps something like a sphere-shaped room, then set up a miniature rotating globe in the centre where we can enter into the inside (climbing up the ladder to it of course), with an adjustable window that represents the field-of-view that we would have on a round planet. The sphere-shaped room itself, surrounding the miniature replica-globe, should have pictures or stickers or something like that of the stars in positions that should correlate according to the current available models in astronomy of positions of stars. This could probably also be time-lapsed to see if it matches the time-lapse of the longitude/latitude co-ordinates of setting up our own cameras at whatever location on earth where we reside.

SpaceAgeBushRanger wrote:
How do explain mountains, then?

This can be explained from Vortex-Fields created by Orgonite-Generating type structures. I am limited on today's available time so I will just tell you that some people take time-lapse footage of their Orgonite-Pyramids when freezing water into ice or with blocks of ice being put above their Orgonite Pyramids, and if your Orgonite Pyramid is below a body of water when freezing it in a freezer to turn it into Ice, the top portion of the block of ice will actually be elevated into a mountain-shape. I will try to find footage of this then link it later if you are interested unless you can find it yourself (actually, I have Orgonite Pyramids of my own, granted I did not make them myself, but I could probably set up an experiment where I can film and time-lapse it to give a better video-presentation than what might currently be available on You-Tube).


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


Scarabola
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 78
Location: Texas

12 May 2016, 10:21 am

SpaceAgeBushRanger wrote:
How do explain mountains, then?


This text with your avatar makes it even better.

Science 1, flat earthers 0



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,275
Location: temperate zone

12 May 2016, 10:02 pm

SpaceAgeBushRanger wrote:
How do explain mountains, then?


What do mountains have to do with it?