Bad Brain
Well-known member
I think everyone acknowledges that they are using a fisheye lens here, but there is footage from a different camera inside the capsule that includes a window shot showing a flat plane.
I think everyone acknowledges that they are using a fisheye lens here, but there is footage from a different camera inside the capsule that includes a window shot showing a flat plane.
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
Well-known member
The moon has been moving about 1.5" a year since having been measured, not 9". You would also have to assume it's consistently moving at the same rate over time with no other variables involved. I don't feel that any of us will be around to watch the ending of our solar system in 5 or so billion years, so wouldn't stress too much about the sun. It's actually losing about 5 million tons of mass per second, not burning 5 million tons of fuel. It actually doesn't burn anything. Through fusion it's converting about 565 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with the difference being released as energy.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
You'd think they'd at least use a flat lens camera but it's always fisheyes.
These students "filmed the breathtaking curvature of earth" with this high altitude balloon. The problem is the degree of the "curve" changes depending on how the camera is pointed up and down and even the string in the picture is curved, lol. I guess it's "proof" to the simpleton.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
@Bad Brain if we consider that the string is "curved" about the same amount as the earth in that video it seems likely that the string is straight (duh) and so is the horizon, assuming we weren't watching it through a fisheye.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Working in arcane units for your benefit. The diameter of the Earth is 41,851,049 Feet.
123000ft/41851049 = 0.294 - his height above the earth would fit into the earth's diameter about 345 times over. If you draw a circle and put a dot above it which is 1/345th of the diameter you'll see it's only a small distance above the circle. You are not going to see a radical curve at that height but you can certainly still see it in the thumbnail of the video.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
It's a fisheye lens so nothing can be determined from that video. Lens distortion is what most people call "da curve".
SatanicPanic
Member
My undergod, great circle navigation is required precisely because the surface being navigated, the earth, is spherical. Let's look at the definition of a Great Circle.
What is a Great Circle?
A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on the surface of a sphere, and its center coincides with the center of the sphere. When flying, the shortest distance between two points on a sphere is along the arc of a great circle.
Here's an experiment you can perform yourself: circumnavigate the earth by flight. Did you end up where you started? Yes, because you traveled via the arc of great circle navigation along the surface of a sphere. Didn't fly off the edge of the earth, did ya?
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
Well-known member
Hilarious amounts of stupidity and fantasy straw grasping bs. Not a single claim a round earth denier in this thread has been backed up with evidence. Not one, and yet stated as facts.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Yep - but it extends to a lot more topics than just this. If people think like this here in this thread by extension it doesn't inspire confidence re: the other bs they spout.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
Ah... thanks for that sis'. I'm pretty-sure I heard back in the '90s that it was 9" but I'm guessing measuring techniques have since been refined. That'd 'splain it at any rate.
As for the sun, that's interesting. It's "common knowledge" that its size is shrinking 0.1% per 100 years and mass along with it.
To a luddite like me, I "see" it shrinking in size and mass and I "know" it's "burning" 5 million tonnes of fuel a second, so I put 2 and 2 together and I think, how the Hell could it be billions, even millions of years old then, and further to that, how long does it really have left? Peeps say billions of years. I'm not buying any of that; it doesn't make sense... to me at least.
Given this shrinkage how the Hell could we end up with so many "stable" orbits (they're all decaying IIRC)? The only logical explanamation to me is that everything was "spun-up" perfectly to begin with and the gradual decays inevitably ensued.
At the end of the day I like to plead ignorance upfront but that doesn't stop my specumalatin'.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
I can't wrap my head around this.
"Circumnavigate" i.e according to imaginary lines arranged by modern man as navigational and mapping aids?
The center of a sphere is at the core, not the north or south pole. Any surface "center" would be arbitrary but I guess they are using true north? Or magnetic north?
Is a plane or ship traveling downhill from it's current location then, since technically if earth is curved that has to be the case?
When flying, if the shortest distance between two points on a sphere is on the arc of a great circle what about straight east to west journeys not along the equator? There is no great circle there and the latitudinal lines do not converge at a point which to me would now suggest a lack of curvature running east to west. It all seems like a fantastical explanation for something that mostly defies human perspective and logic.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Downhill? lol
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
If the earth is a globe, and spinning at hundreds of miles an hour, how high must I ascend before I can remain stationary yet still cover ground? In other words, how much altitude do I need before I can travel while standing still? Why do low earth orbit heights vary by 25% or more?
From google:
From google:
- Low Earth Orbit (LEO): 100,000 to 1,240,000 feet.
If earth is curved, then if you are on a boat then theoretically everything is downhill from your current point. Therefore anyone on any boat on any body of water is moving in a downwards direction. That's the logical conclusion.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Yo @Bad Brain
One small step for man, one giant leap for idiot bimbos, lol. Soooo reeeeeel dis proooofs it!!!
One small step for man, one giant leap for idiot bimbos, lol. Soooo reeeeeel dis proooofs it!!!
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Well no and I can't believe I'm trying to explaining this. Gravity points to the centre of the Earth. Watch a plumb bob or a plumb line. It always points down no matter where you are or move to. If the earth just happened to be dead flat, 1 km away or whatever isn't downhill. It's just another point on earth that is equidistant to the centre of the earth. Nothing would roll downhill. I am not standing on the ceiling of my house in Australia. Honestly I despair.
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
Well-known member
The funny thing is that they're accusing others of not having evidence or that they just outright lie about how things are said to be. i.e.; claiming that scientists said the the idiotic Chicago picture is a mirage, when it is in fact stated as evidence of a globe earth (which is pretty easy for even the dumbest humans to grasp) and not downplayed as a mirage.
I wonder why your view of the stars and mine are different? Why do you believe that we don't share the same view of them? In fact, there are stars in my view of space at night that you cannot see and vice versa. That's so weird, isn't it? Why when I watch the sunset in the last few moments can I lay down and it disappears from view, but if I stand up I can see it again? Why on my local beach during the sunrise is this possible for me as well? Why do shadows not line up with flat earth math and time, angle, and distance to the source? Why does a ship disappear on the horizon? Why can't I see the same altitude of Mt. Rainer off of my front porch? In fact, why can't I see Mt. Everest? Why can't I feel the earth moving when it's already at speed? So many more unsolved questions. Hopefully one day we'll figure it out.
Ah... thanks for that sis'. I'm pretty-sure I heard back in the '90s that it was 9" but I'm guessing measuring techniques have since been refined. That'd 'splain it at any rate.
As for the sun, that's interesting. It's "common knowledge" that its size is shrinking 0.1% per 100 years and mass along with it.
To a luddite like me, I "see" it shrinking in size and mass and I "know" it's "burning" 5 million tonnes of fuel a second, so I put 2 and 2 together and I think, how the Hell could it be billions, even millions of years old then, and further to that, how long does it really have left? Peeps say billions of years. I'm not buying any of that; it doesn't make sense... to me at least.
Given this shrinkage how the Hell could we end up with so many "stable" orbits (they're all decaying IIRC)? The only logical explanamation to me is that everything was "spun-up" perfectly to begin with and the gradual decays inevitably ensued.
At the end of the day I like to plead ignorance upfront but that doesn't stop my specumalatin'.
There's a lot to answering this without creating unrelated rabbit hole questions that lead no where by anyone not actually interested in comprehended it. Not that you're one of those people, but there are a few people here who would prefer those of us who know we're wasting our time on giving every single answer that would still never satisfy their troll.
Ultimately without getting deep into it; It actually doesn't matter for the leaning of what I'm assuming you are referring to. That is that our understanding of the Universe doesn't dismiss the possibility or probability of intelligent design. In the way we understand how things work; it doesn't really require it, either.
That's not at all meant to say that someone didn't already know/predict an outcome of events before they created it, but that we can predict events and yet are far from fully understanding the nature of reality's birth. It's safe to assume, in my personal opinion, that we eventually will based off our evolution of knowledge and understanding. In the "we" sense of some entity of our universe, whether we survive that far is another question. I just don't believe it is beyond our grasp or that there are any secrets in it's workings that are beyond understanding. I personally lean towards intelligent design when looking at the universe with my current understanding of reality.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
You can't see a theory. Gravity is a theory, not a proof.
Yes, it points down and to your (presumed) "center".
So while we are in the simple truths lesson let's look at water, which has been used for generations to find level, since water does not curve.
It is only logical that a boat on a curved earth can only travel downhill from it's current location, since everything is curving away from it on a ball. I'm not sure why that is a source for amusement from you but that is the logical conclusion of a ball earth.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Over large scales water does curve - take the Pacific Ocean for example. Over the scale of a normal building project it's flat enough due to the diameter of the Earth being huge relative to the building.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
@NowYou'rePlayingWithPower Honestly there's no hope.