|
|
Post by matt on Apr 8, 2015 11:08:23 GMT
I did some imaging work to understand what a curvature would mean on the earth. I thought I would post some of it here. I made a scale model of earth and posted viewing cameras at different locations to see what it would look like from our point of view. Perhaps my modeling is off, but it gave me a better understanding, I think, of what to expect when people say it is "flat" or "it is curved". First I placed a camera at a height that would be about 20 miles above the earth (actually 121,000 ft) looking straight ahead. As we are told, the shape of the earth is lower and not straight ahead because of the spherical shape. Even though it is a sphere in the image, one can detect only a very small curve on the surface. I am not sure if what we see in the balloon video is the same as this, but I wanted to try to create some kind of reference to compare to.  Next, I placed one at 100 miles looking straight ahead. The curve is more noticeable now and is much lower at the bottom of the camera viewport.  The last image is viewed at 250 miles up and the camera cannot look straight ahead as the ball is too low at this point, so it is tilted down at 15 degrees. The curvature is much more pronounced now. I am not sure if it is the same as is claimed from the ISS images, but again it is only a reference. It does not seem, either, that people can claim they can see a curvature unless they go far above the 20 mile mark.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 11:51:49 GMT
I did some imaging work to understand what a curvature would mean on the earth. I thought I would post some of it here. I made a scale model of earth and posted viewing cameras at different locations to see what it would look like from our point of view. Perhaps my modeling is off, but it gave me a better understanding, I think, of what to expect when people say it is "flat" or "it is curved". First I placed a camera at a height that would be about 20 miles above the earth (actually 121,000 ft) looking straight ahead. As we are told, the shape of the earth is lower and not straight ahead because of the spherical shape. Even though it is a sphere in the image, one can detect only a very small curve on the surface. I am not sure if what we see in the balloon video is the same as this, but I wanted to try to create some kind of reference to compare to. Next, I placed one at 100 miles looking straight ahead. The curve is more noticeable now and is much lower at the bottom of the camera viewport. The last image is viewed at 250 miles up and the camera cannot look straight ahead as the ball is too low at this point, so it is tilted down at 15 degrees. The curvature is much more pronounced now. I am not sure if it is the same as is claimed from the ISS images, but again it is only a reference. It does not seem, either, that people can claim they can see a curvature unless they go far above the 20 mile mark. That is interesting, as I was thinking about this yesterday. How high do you have to go to see a marked curvature? It's clear from the balloon videos that 110,000 feet shows no curvature whatsoever. If "their" idea of the right circumference of the ball earth is true, then they are saying you should notice a drop off even from the surface of the earth and looking at a city 30 miles away. 30 miles is easily seen on a clear day. Yet, no drop off. But maybe "their" calculation of the circumference is wrong. Which again, puts things into, can I believe my eyes? If the earth is a ball, then how high must you go to see a curve? It's a good study to do. That won't change the fact that the NASA photos aren't photos at all. They're computer graphics. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 8, 2015 12:26:49 GMT
I think this would mean that all the "proofs" out there about curvature can be clearly seen as falsified - barrel lens distortion or simple fisheye. They would need to travel much higher to prove there is a curvature. The Baumgartner video - wasn't he only up to 80,000 feet? I cannot remember. I do not think a curvature can be seen at that height if it was a sphere. I remember too, when he filmed the earth and how "round" it was - if you look at the video just before he went out, there is a window in his capsule (without the fisheye lens) that showed a very straight horizon.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:31:05 GMT
I think this would mean that all the "proofs" out there about curvature can be clearly seen as falsified - barrel lens distortion or simple fisheye. They would need to travel much higher to prove there is a curvature. The Baumgartner video - wasn't he only up to 80,000 feet? I cannot remember. I do not think a curvature can be seen at that height if it was a sphere. I remember too, when he filmed the earth and how "round" it was - if you look at the video just before he went out, there is a window in his capsule (without the fisheye lens) that showed a very straight horizon. Yes, his curvature video was contradicted by his capsule window, and also, the curve outside the capsule was so ridiculous, that if would mean that an area like Manhattan, for example, encompassed 1/4 of the earth's surface. So more games, games, lies, lies, from the "establishment". But it's fun to investigate and try and figure out what's going on here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 17:10:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 17:20:06 GMT
flat earth truthI have watched the videos you linked. Indeed something is wrong with the official claim that the Earth curves the way it supposedly does. We shouldn't see examples of the contrary at all. Another issue that they haven't explained is why mountains observed from a distance don't incline away from the observer if the surface is curved. I think I argued with someone about this on FES, and they said there is a change in the angle, but it is negligible. I don't think so at all. It should be noticeable given some mountain peaks are >200 km away. No idea how they manipulate the math and make it fit the round Earth model, but it might be a trick, a very ingenious trick.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 17:37:40 GMT
flat earth truthI have watched the videos you linked. Indeed something is wrong with the official claim that the Earth curves the way it supposedly does. We shouldn't see examples of the contrary at all. Another issue that they haven't explained is why mountains observed from a distance don't incline away from the observer if the surface is curved. I think I argued with someone about this on FES, and they said there is a change in the angle, but it is negligible. I don't think so at all. It should be noticeable given some mountain peaks are >200 km away. No idea how they manipulate the math and make it fit the round Earth model, but it might be a trick, a very ingenious trick. 200km is a little less than 2 degrees. If a mountain leans away from you by two degrees even if you could check it from the side view it would be impossible to detect it with your eyes given the shape of a mountain. Even for other object shapes it would be impossible at 200km distance |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 18:01:25 GMT
flat earth truthI have watched the videos you linked. Indeed something is wrong with the official claim that the Earth curves the way it supposedly does. We shouldn't see examples of the contrary at all. Another issue that they haven't explained is why mountains observed from a distance don't incline away from the observer if the surface is curved. I think I argued with someone about this on FES, and they said there is a change in the angle, but it is negligible. I don't think so at all. It should be noticeable given some mountain peaks are >200 km away. No idea how they manipulate the math and make it fit the round Earth model, but it might be a trick, a very ingenious trick. 200km is a little less than 2 degrees. If a mountain leans away from you by two degrees even if you could check it from the side view it would be impossible to detect it with your eyes given the shape of a mountain. Even for other object shapes it would be impossible at 200km distance Basically, you're saying objects disappear due to the curvature, but they disappear without noticeably leaning away from you eventually? I would expect to see this leaning effect if indeed the object has partially vanished due to the curvature. Curvature between two points can be also seen as leaning away. From planes you can see mountains even 400 km away with no visible leaning away at all. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 18:24:17 GMT
200km is a little less than 2 degrees. If a mountain leans away from you by two degrees even if you could check it from the side view it would be impossible to detect it with your eyes given the shape of a mountain. Even for other object shapes it would be impossible at 200km distance Basically, you're saying objects disappear due to the curvature, but they disappear without noticeably leaning away from you eventually? I would expect to see this leaning effect if indeed the object has partially vanished due to the curvature. Curvature between two points can be also seen as leaning away. From planes you can see mountains even 400 km away with no visible leaning away at all. 400km away is slightly less than 4 degrees. you are still talking about very small angles on an irregular shape where the object leans away from you and you have no reference point to compare what it would have looked like. The difference in shape will be tiny. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 14, 2015 19:09:38 GMT
Ok here is what I have tried to do: 1. Camera on Curved Earth. Mountains in distance from right to left at 30mi, 60mi, 100mi and 500mi. All mountains situated so that they would angle away from the observer. These are the angles (away): 30 mi: 0.073deg 60 mi: 1.364deg 100mi: 1.423deg 500mi: 7.471deg I also did not use math equations to place/angle them, but tried with my honest eyeball. I did not want anything set up except for what I could actually see. The 500 mile mountain is not visible here.  I added another picture, but hiding the curved surface to show where the mountains would appear in relation to the observer - lower than horizon as they were further away. This one below shows actual locations on the curve. Here the 500 mile mountain is visible on far bottom left - it is very tiny.  2. Camera on Flat Earth. Mountains in distance from right to left at 30mi, 60mi, 100mi and 500mi. The rest here is self-explanatory.  I think it is hard to see an angle in the curved pictures even at a great distance. The falling below the horizon is very clear though. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 19, 2015 21:23:01 GMT
I just read the following article: www.sailnet.com/forums/her-sailnet-articles/21020-light-lists-lighthouses-visible-ranges.htmlThere was an interesting paragraph about luminous intensity: So basically they admit that you cannot see lights endlessly. This actually proves that the argument some people make against flat Earth that you should see mountains from 1000 km away is wrong. After all, what you see is the light reflected off those mountains. We always see the light. However, light has a luminous range. You cannot see stuff forever over a distance due to the fact that light has a luminous range. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to see the Sun after a certain distance either. They say that the height of the eye doesn't matter if the light is weak. Well, it is known that just before sunset the light intensity of the Sun is much lower. You can even look at the Sun directly. So basically the Sun also has a luminous range. When its light gets too weak it simply disappears. Not sure if the above can be applied to the Sun, but I think its light is indeed weaker around sunset, so perhaps the so-called luminous range should be applicable to the Sun as well. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 20, 2015 5:24:06 GMT
I just read the following article: www.sailnet.com/forums/her-sailnet-articles/21020-light-lists-lighthouses-visible-ranges.htmlThere was an interesting paragraph about luminous intensity: So basically they admit that you cannot see lights endlessly. This actually proves that the argument some people make against flat Earth that you should see mountains from 1000 km away is wrong. After all, what you see is the light reflected off those mountains. We always see the light. However, light has a luminous range. You cannot see stuff forever over a distance due to the fact that light has a luminous range. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to see the Sun after a certain distance either. They say that the height of the eye doesn't matter if the light is weak. Well, it is known that just before sunset the light intensity of the Sun is much lower. You can even look at the Sun directly. So basically the Sun also has a luminous range. When its light gets too weak it simply disappears. Not sure if the above can be applied to the Sun, but I think its light is indeed weaker around sunset, so perhaps the so-called luminous range should be applicable to the Sun as well. A visible sunset always takes this form no matter how poorly we see the sun or how distant the object at the horizon is seen.  Any taller objects between the local horizon and the sun or sky must be seen on a flat earth if we can see the Sun or the sky behind the horizon. Any rising land behind that picture would be visible to make the local objects invisible against the blackness of the more distant object |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 20, 2015 5:50:59 GMT
I just read the following article: www.sailnet.com/forums/her-sailnet-articles/21020-light-lists-lighthouses-visible-ranges.htmlThere was an interesting paragraph about luminous intensity: So basically they admit that you cannot see lights endlessly. This actually proves that the argument some people make against flat Earth that you should see mountains from 1000 km away is wrong. After all, what you see is the light reflected off those mountains. We always see the light. However, light has a luminous range. You cannot see stuff forever over a distance due to the fact that light has a luminous range. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to see the Sun after a certain distance either. They say that the height of the eye doesn't matter if the light is weak. Well, it is known that just before sunset the light intensity of the Sun is much lower. You can even look at the Sun directly. So basically the Sun also has a luminous range. When its light gets too weak it simply disappears. Not sure if the above can be applied to the Sun, but I think its light is indeed weaker around sunset, so perhaps the so-called luminous range should be applicable to the Sun as well. 1. In clear weather the sun is always visible at the horizon even while the intensity is reduced and we can see the horizon clearly with no area of blackness above those clearly seen objects on the horizon. 2. If we now assume we are already living on a flat earth, and 1. is an observational reality, then on a flat earth at sunset, any tall object that is between the sun and the observer must be seen if the sun is shining on the tall object and there are no areas of blackness above the horizon. Yeah, good point, but I don't think it completely matches reality. Here where I live I can see a mountain range(it is 100 km away) only occasionally when the atmospheric conditions allow it even though it is in the same direction the Sun sets. How is this possible? You can see the mountain only on some days, but you can always see the Sun set, when it is not cloudy. Basically, you're saying that since the mountain is between the Sun and me, I should be able to see it every day, when this is clearly not true. Anyway, I don't claim that luminous range should necessarily apply to the Sun as well(it was just a funny hypothesis), however, it was interesting to read that you cannot see a source of light endlessly regardless of your height. That is actually common sense. It is more relevant to long distance observations. However, RE'ers somehow always forget about luminous range when they ask, for example, why you cannot see Africa from England. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 20, 2015 6:00:13 GMT
1. In clear weather the sun is always visible at the horizon even while the intensity is reduced and we can see the horizon clearly with no area of blackness above those clearly seen objects on the horizon. 2. If we now assume we are already living on a flat earth, and 1. is an observational reality, then on a flat earth at sunset, any tall object that is between the sun and the observer must be seen if the sun is shining on the tall object and there are no areas of blackness above the horizon. Yeah, good point, but I don't think it completely matches reality. Here where I live I can see a mountain range(it is 100 km away) only occasionally when the atmospheric conditions allow it even though it is in the same direction the Sun sets. How is this possible? You can see the mountain only on some days, but you can always see the Sun set, when it is not cloudy. Basically, you're saying that since the mountain is between the Sun and me, I should be able to see it every day, when this is clearly not true. Anyway, I don't claim that luminous range should necessarily apply to the Sun as well(it was just a funny hypothesis), however, it was interesting to read that you cannot see a source of light endlessly regardless of your height. That is actually common sense. It is more relevant to long distance observations. However, RE'ers somehow always forget about luminous range when they ask, for example, why you cannot see Africa from England. If you only occasionally see the sun setting over a 100km distant mountain range then it suggests at your elevation and the height of the range there is insufficient height difference to enable the mountain to be visible apart from unusual atmospheric conditions, because the earth is not flat. Additionally if the land rises locally towards the mountain and then falls away again you will only notice that amount of mountain that pokes above the object that is higher than you. A telescope should clear that up though |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 20, 2015 6:09:55 GMT
Yeah, good point, but I don't think it completely matches reality. Here where I live I can see a mountain range(it is 100 km away) only occasionally when the atmospheric conditions allow it even though it is in the same direction the Sun sets. How is this possible? You can see the mountain only on some days, but you can always see the Sun set, when it is not cloudy. Basically, you're saying that since the mountain is between the Sun and me, I should be able to see it every day, when this is clearly not true. Anyway, I don't claim that luminous range should necessarily apply to the Sun as well(it was just a funny hypothesis), however, it was interesting to read that you cannot see a source of light endlessly regardless of your height. That is actually common sense. It is more relevant to long distance observations. However, RE'ers somehow always forget about luminous range when they ask, for example, why you cannot see Africa from England. If you only occasionally see the sun setting over a 100km distant mountain range then it suggests at your elevation and the height of the range there is insufficient height difference to enable the mountain to be visible apart from unusual atmospheric conditions, because the earth is not flat. The mountain range is around 2500 m tall, so you don't need a mirage to see it, however, the atmospheric conditions don't allow it. Not every day at least. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 20, 2015 6:15:44 GMT
If you only occasionally see the sun setting over a 100km distant mountain range then it suggests at your elevation and the height of the range there is insufficient height difference to enable the mountain to be visible apart from unusual atmospheric conditions, because the earth is not flat. The mountain range is around 2500 m tall, so you don't need a mirage to see it, however, the atmospheric conditions don't allow it. Not every day at least. You only see 2500m if you are at sea level. You need to take account your local elevation and the elevation of more distant objects between you and the mountain before you will know what image you can expect to see of the 100km distant mountain. Ideally you need to make your observation at any local height with flat land between you and a more distant much higher object. For example from the flat plains with no hills in the local area for say 20 miles and nothing particularly high after 20 miles before the mountain is visible or whatever the maths reveals. Also a peak will be much more visible than a long range. You must see a peak against the sun on a flat earth as well as a round earth if the maths allow it. A range is only going to be a thin line between the local horizon and the sun |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 20, 2015 10:51:02 GMT
aliveandkickingYou can clearly see the mountain from pretty much everywhere where I live. The region is not flat though. Average elevation of around 200 meters. However, you don't see the mountain every day. It is actually visible only rarely. 
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 20, 2015 11:06:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhatgirl on May 5, 2015 9:36:23 GMT
Has this video already been posted?
A gigapixel project showing pictures of major town where you can zoom in miles and miles away and still see details.....but no curvature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gr8Believer on May 5, 2015 16:04:04 GMT
Being a photographer I was keenly interested in this Canon 5200mm lens that can take photographs of objects 18 to 32 miles away (30km to 52kms away). Can someone please work out the curvature for 32 miles?
5200mm Canon Lens World's MOST powerful Super telephoto EF FD
We need to get this sucker on the beach.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 6, 2015 8:28:25 GMT
Gr8BelieverIt is easier and cheaper to get a powerful telescope instead.
|
|
