Balloons

In another topic this idea has been mentioned of using balloons. Tom Bishop already pointed out a website of MIT students who launched a balloon for only $150 to capture the curvature of the earth, (as said on the website)

"The two students (from MIT, of course) put together a low-budget rig to fly a camera high enough to photograph the curvature of the Earth."

. The website http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

Obviously, he pointed to the photographs, which he just blindly looks at it and sees a flat disc. Really poor research. He is not taking into account the photo is taken at an angle and from that perspective it is extremely difficult to see a curvature.

Tom Bishop already said about these high altitude photos

But we do not discount what is observed at the edge of space by high altitude balloons, launched by entities unconnected to NASA

The simplest method to check if there is a curvature is to flip the photo to a more horizontal perspective. That is what I did. Then I drew a horizontal line and it becomes very clear that there is a curvature. Here is the same picture, except rotated 40 degrees clockwise with a white horizontal line.

I don't expect you to explain it, this is too obvious. It would take a load off my mind if you would just agree with me. We're living on a spherical earth.

You don't think this photo complies with a flat earth?

I think photographs with both the horizon and the day/night terminator in them would be much more interesting here. If there's a fet explanation for such pictures, I haven't seen it.

I think photographs with both the horizon and the day/night terminator in them would be much more interesting here. If there's a fet explanation for such pictures, I haven't seen it.

Here is where a relevant thread begins, involving a photo with both the day-night terminator and the curvature of the Earth.

If the horizon was perfectly flat left to right and did not wrap around you, the earth would have to be infinite.

If the earth was a flat disk, well that picture is what you would expect.

If the horizon was perfectly flat left to right and did not wrap around you, the earth would have to be infinite.

If the earth was a flat disk, well that picture is what you would expect.

Today we learn from Ævan that the whole world is about as large as the Massachusetts area, where this picture was taken. I did not know that Asia, or any other continent that cannot be seen in this photo, is actually fake. Probably a conspiracy.

What you have posted is what it would look like maybe at the very edge of Earth.
And if you say "It's the spotlight of the sun which is a circle that you are seeing", there are many areas hundreds of miles past the "curve" in this picture that still experience daylight. So, probably no. Unless, of course, you believe the Massachusetts area is the only place that gets sunlight in the picture.

Quote from: Ævan on July 18, 2013, 10:38:38 AM

If the horizon was perfectly flat left to right and did not wrap around you, the earth would have to be infinite.

If the earth was a flat disk, well that picture is what you would expect.

Today we learn from Ævan that the whole world is about as large as the Massachusetts area, where this picture was taken. I did not know that Asia, or any other continent that cannot be seen in this photo, is actually fake. Probably a conspiracy.

What you have posted is what it would look like maybe at the very edge of Earth.
And if you say "It's the spotlight of the sun which is a circle that you are seeing", there are many areas hundreds of miles past the "curve" in this picture that still experience daylight. So, probably no. Unless, of course, you believe the Massachusetts area is the only place that gets sunlight in the picture.

This is mostly because you have not studied the spot-light theory of the sun. Go do that.

Alright Aevan, you believe the earth is partially curved, but still a disc and not a sphere. I can applaud your creativity, but no, it does still not correspond with the observations. This is the part where you have to link this image with other observations.

First off a disk shaped like that, while the earth is constantly accelerating upwards, means that all the water would be pushed downwards. As the surface is like a hill, all the water would be at the edges. We know, even with a planar projection with the north-pole as the middle, there is lots of water in the middle. There is no explanation to that.

Second, the shape still does not explain the summer/winter issue, the discussion going on in another thread.

Third, the shape still does not explain the equal travel times between two cities south of the equator and two cities north of the equator.

And so forth.

Nice try, but no. No answer. 

First off a disk shaped like that, while the earth is constantly accelerating upwards, means that all the water would be pushed downwards. As the surface is like a hill, all the water would be at the edges.

No, the earth is flat. We have never claimed that the north pole is the highest part. Also why would the water be pushed towards the edges if the force is equal and space is a vacuum?

We know, even with a planar projection with the north-pole as the middle, there is lots of water in the middle. There is no explanation to that.

Because again, we never claimed the north pole to be the highest part of the disk. Why would it be?

Second, the shape still does not explain the summer/winter issue, the discussion going on in another thread.

That is explained with the diagram below.

Third, the shape still does not explain the equal travel times between two cities south of the equator and two cities north of the equator.

Why would it? It's a photo. It doesn't explain how Jimmy Hendrix could play the guitar so well either.

And so forth.

And no fourth. You don't have many objections. That's good. I guess we are getting through to you.

Nice try, but no. No answer.

Wrong again. 

Aevan, I appreciate your response, but first we need to clarify some things.

You showed a picture of a dish plate. I assume that is to explain the curvature seen on the photo, while the earth can still be more or less flat. However, as I said, the water will be running down 'hill' as the northpole in that case the highest point. If the north-pole is the lowest point, it does not correspond with the photo, which shows a downward curve.

I can go on and refute your reasoning. If the world is flat, which I now assume you mean it would not correspond with the picture. Either way you got a conflict, which goes unexplained. If you did not intend it either way, you got to explain things. It is still unresolved. Unless, ofcourse, you take a spherical earth, in which all the observations made can be applied. 

It is a misconception that on Earth it is a vacuum.

Your diagram, I will discuss that in the other thread "Summer/winter", to keep this one clear.

Your example of Jimmy Hendrix would only be relevant if we would be talking about his ability to play other string instruments so well. All the issues I raised are relevant to the curvature. Jimmy Hendrix is not.

You showed a picture of a dish plate. I assume that is to explain the curvature seen on the photo, while the earth can still be more or less flat. However, as I said, the water will be running down 'hill' as the northpole in that case the highest point. If the north-pole is the lowest point, it does not correspond with the photo, which shows a downward curve.

That downward curve is the ... are you trolling me? Its just the camera showing right of the centre line. If you mirrored the image to show the whole panorama, there is no 'hill' bias'. I can't believe you are coming back with this nonsensical rubbish as a rebuttal to a flat earth.

I can go on and refute your reasoning. If the world is flat, which I now assume you mean it would not correspond with the picture. Either way you got a conflict, which goes unexplained. If you did not intend it either way, you got to explain things. It is still unresolved. Unless, ofcourse, you take a spherical earth, in which all the observations made can be applied. 

There is nothing to explain. You just don't understand what a flat earth looks like. The horizon cannot be straight on any earth, round or flat, unless that earth is infinite. The second it is not, that earth must wrap around you. Hence a curve in its edge. The reason I posted a dinner plate. Flat and curved. Its not a paradox, its definitely not a conflict. The earth curves as it wraps all around us. It does not fall away at the edges. Do not confuse round edge curvature with ball-like curvature. A circle is not a sphere, but both have a curved edge. Did I make it simple enough this time?

It is a misconception that on Earth it is a vacuum.

Read my post again. I said space is a vacuum. Not the earth. And as such there is nothing to push water to the edges.

Your example of Jimmy Hendrix would only be relevant if we would be talking about his ability to play other string instruments so well. All the issues I raised are relevant to the curvature. Jimmy Hendrix is not.

You expecting one image to answer every question you could have is unrealistic. It seems even with an analogy this has escaped you twice.

Aevan. Thank you for your reply. Things have now been clarified as what you actually meant. Now let me first ask you what the size of the spotlight  of the sun is. What is its radius? I have set up an experiment and all I need to know is the radius of the spotlight....

Edit: just to clarify. What would be the approximate distance you would be able to see on that photo?

Edit 2: After the viewing distance have been determined by the flat earth believers, I will run the experiment and publish the experiment so anyone here can repeat the experiment after me. I will also publish the results. Basically it is peer-reviewing.

I will be looking forward to the viewing distances!

He is misinterpreting the "spotlight" theory of the sun, Don.

Look up "spotlight" in the website. There are some helpful animation of what he is saying.

The curve we see cannot be the edge of the spotlight simply because it would mean that sunlight ends there. It does not. At the time the picture was taken, apparently morning/noon, there is much more land past that curve/line that has sunlight still. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's night for them. It would be like saying, "I can't see South America right now, therefore it is night for them, since it is day for me. :/

Aevan, am I getting it right, or am I still wrong? I thought I had a grip on this, at least I felt like it.

First of all, that height is not the height we should start guessing at what the horizon is doing! I'm sure a plum building would look as curved as that horizon in a photograph!

Second of all, line the horizon up with the middle of your line for better reference.


We need to figure out what weather balloons can really be used for.  Surveying the land is what I'm trying to get across to flat-earthers!

All I need to do right now is fill a balloon with hydrogen and attach my self to an oxygen source and an internal heater.  I will completely go as high as I can with a cheap emergency parachute attached to the tiny levitating cubicle.  From there, I can take a bunch of pictures from the tiny window and prove the earth is flat...  It could take a healthy period of time for me to gather materials...  HYDrogen is so so cheap and easy to fill a balloon with.  I just have to be careful about sparks...

All I need to do right now is fill a balloon with hydrogen and attach my self to an oxygen source and an internal heater.  I will completely go as high as I can with a cheap emergency parachute attached to the tiny levitating cubicle.  From there, I can take a bunch of pictures from the tiny window and prove the earth is flat...  It could take a healthy period of time for me to gather materials...  HYDrogen is so so cheap and easy to fill a balloon with.  I just have to be careful about sparks...

You mean you're going to do what Joseph Kittinger and Felix B. have already done? You're only going to get up to about 30 kilometers, and that's if you've got a pressure suit and a high-quality balloon. Also, your parachute should probably be not so cheap, seeing as if the balloon pops you'll be falling a bit faster than the average skydiver.

That picture only shows horizontal curvature, as to suggest that we are looking down at a 2D circle. There is nothing to suggest that we are looking at a 3D sphere

As per the distant continents being unseen, of course they are unseen. There is a thick  blue atmosphere which blots out the fine details in the distance. Not that you would even be able to see such details at the distances they sit. It is impossible to make out what is going on in the distance near the terminator.

I realistically have a design that get me up in the air.  I can seal the plywood cubicle tight with rubber and line the insides with fiberglass insulation for a cheap vehicle.  All I have to do is use vinyl or some weather balloon material for the inflatable top...  The experiment might even give good publicity to our cause...

I realistically have a design that get me up in the air.  I can seal the plywood cubicle tight with rubber and line the insides with fiberglass insulation for a cheap vehicle.  All I have to do is use vinyl or some weather balloon material for the inflatable top...  The experiment might even give good publicity to our cause...

Just to be clear, when you die from this it's through no fault of any kind of conspiracy. It's because your construction failed. Kittinger and Felix rode balloons up, which were 15 meters in diameter when they jumped. The air up there is so rarefied a pressure suit is necessary. If something happens to your craft and you find yourself falling, a drag chute is required because there's not enough air to make use of a real parachute.

Don't expect to get much higher than 30 kilometers--well short of the official boundary of space, unless you have some really high-quality balloon technology.

That being said, if you are able to do this stunt safely, I highly encourage it! I'd love to see someone do this for the photography aspect instead of the free-fall aspect. Assuming you'll try to take as many pictures as possible, and maybe videos, I'm very excited to see your results!

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on July 27, 2013, 09:24:10 AM

I realistically have a design that get me up in the air.  I can seal the plywood cubicle tight with rubber and line the insides with fiberglass insulation for a cheap vehicle.  All I have to do is use vinyl or some weather balloon material for the inflatable top...  The experiment might even give good publicity to our cause...

Just to be clear, when you die from this it's through no fault of any kind of conspiracy. It's because your construction failed. Kittinger and Felix rode balloons up, which were 15 meters in diameter when they jumped. The air up there is so rarefied a pressure suit is necessary. If something happens to your craft and you find yourself falling, a drag chute is required because there's not enough air to make use of a real parachute.

Don't expect to get much higher than 30 kilometers--well short of the official boundary of space, unless you have some really high-quality balloon technology.

That being said, if you are able to do this stunt safely, I highly encourage it! I'd love to see someone do this for the photography aspect instead of the free-fall aspect. Assuming you'll try to take as many pictures as possible, and maybe videos, I'm very excited to see your results!

I have spandex with latex painted on the outside and a 5 gallon tank with the top cut off that I can seam into the suit.  That should be enough pressure.  It could take some time to plan even more thoroughly.  But a pressure suit was a given... I know about the U2 planes that fly in the upper atmosphere with space equipment...