The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: The Biohazard on October 09, 2011, 05:28:40 AM
-
This guy made a rocket out of parts he purchased himself, with no government assistance or anything of the sort.
Must he be in on the conspiracy too?
-
This guy made a rocket out of parts he purchased himself, with no government assistance or anything of the sort.
Must he be in on the conspiracy too?
We had a thread almost identical to this one yesterday. I don't feel like doing it over again. Find that thread if you want an answer. Sorry.
-
I did search through this section for it and I couldn't find anything similiar, is it in another section?
-
The oblique view from the bottom of the rocket is a fish-eye lens. You can see how curved the horizon appears to be while the rocket is still on the pad (moment 5:17 -- I don't know how to capture a still).
-
What purpose would a normal person with no knowledge of any conspiracy, completely believing in the earth being round, have to use a fish-eye lens? And even if he did you can obviously see it is not a fish-eye lens from the footage before you see the whole earth being round.
-
To capture more of the view, I'd imagine -- the same reason a fish-eye lens is normally used. Did you even look at the view from the pad at moment 5:17? Are you suggesting that the view is an accurate representation of the horizon from ground level?
-
Indeed it is slightly curved I'll admit, but if you look at the curvature from the lens at that point you see that it is only curved around the edge of lens, as you would expect, but when you look at the earth from the high up footage, no such curvature is apparent, in most frames it curves in the middle of the frame not at the edges where it should be curving if it was all down to the lens.
-
08:08: Looks flat to me.
???
-
How about 8.20 where it quite definitely curves directly at the middle of the lens, where by all logic of a fish-eye lens it should be flat? Or even 9.36 where you have an even better show of this?
-
video shows the "lit" part of our giant disc from our spherical sun. Thank you for sharing.
thanks for debunking the spotlight sun theory as well.
-
It's either a fish-eye or wide angle lens. The shape of the horizon changes drastically depending on where it is on screen.
With a proper camera the horizon is slightly curved from the edge of space, but that it because the observer is looking down at a circle.
-
One other thing that has just struck me, disregarding the lens causing curvature or anything, why can't we see the ice wall?
I think that would show up pretty clearly on any shot of the earth from that high up?
-
Diffusion of light through the atmosphere.
-
So you are saying diffusion of light is enough to make a MASSIVE wall of ice at the edges of the world completely invisible, when other continents and details on the surface are clearly visible?
-
yes after 5 mins its highly distorted, however the first 5 isnt, thanks for that post thats pretty cool and scary that some guys can effectivly make a missile!
-
So you are saying diffusion of light is enough to make a MASSIVE wall of ice at the edges of the world completely invisible, when other continents and details on the surface are clearly visible?
Diffusion of light is enough to make an airplane disappear on a clear day. City buildings disappear into the murk on a smoggy day. Think of all the weather between you and the rim country. Why would you expect to see mountains at that distance. There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home.
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/denver/33420d1230765692-cute-cozy-restaurants-20050724-015.jpg)
Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?
-
Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?
With the atmosphere at a thousandth of the pressure and very little dust and smog at the height the rocket got up to you would expect that you would be able to see a little further than the few hundred miles that this video coupled with the flat Earth model suggests.
-
so the great wall can be seen from space (or for you FAQQERS) high altitudes, but the great "ice wall" can not. or does NASA (and everyone else) digitally erase the ice wall from photos?
probably becase the ice wall does not exist. Love it when FAQQERS post photos of ice shelfs, thinking they will hold back billions of tons of water pressure.
Antarctica is a continent, fully mapped and explored, not to mentioned lived on. To call it "the ice wall" is the just irresponsible for a Zetetic.
-
Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?
With the atmosphere at a thousandth of the pressure and very little dust and smog at the height the rocket got up to you would expect that you would be able to see a little further than the few hundred miles that this video coupled with the flat Earth model suggests.
The rocket was 9000 miles away from the Antarctica -- How far exactly do you expect to see? ???
-
The rocket was 9000 miles away from the Antarctica -- How far exactly do you expect to see? ???
Well, as the pressure is about 800 - 900 times less than it is at Denver, and you can see 20 miles from there, I would guess you could see about 800 - 900 times as far. So, about 16,000 - 18,000 miles?
-
Maybe one of the more intelligent round earthers will come around and tell you about the topics of angular resolution and diffraction.
-
Maybe one of the more intelligent round earthers will come around and tell you about the topics of angular resolution and diffraction.
There's enough diffraction in such thin air to result in everything past a few hundred miles disappearing? I've never seen any attempt to show that it is what's expected in the FE model. Likewise with angular resolution.
-
Over the course of 9000 miles you would be looking down through the atmosphere. Unless you really believe there would be no clouds, moisture, dust, etc in the air between you and mountain. At 9000 miles a mountain the size of Mt. Everest would be smaller than the eyes ability to resolve even with zero atmosphere. Do the math.
-
Over the course of 9000 miles you would be looking down through the atmosphere. Unless you really believe there would be no clouds, moisture, dust, etc in the air between you and mountain. At 9000 miles a mountain the size of Mt. Everest would be smaller than the eyes ability to resolve even with zero atmosphere. Do the math.
[FE'er] But you can see the Moon, isn't that 3000 miles away? [/FE'er]
-
I'm fairly certain that three-thousand miles is a roughly third of nine-thousand miles. I'm not sure because I am not good at math and hate fractions, but I think it's close. The moon is also several times larger than Mount Everest.
If you don't have anything useful to post, don't.
-
Diffusion of light is enough to make an airplane disappear on a clear day. City buildings disappear into the murk on a smoggy day. Think of all the weather between you and the rim country. Why would you expect to see mountains at that distance. There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home.
Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?
:P
You can't claim that it's unusual to see 20 miles, perfectly reasonable to see 3000 miles and ludicrous to see 9000 miles in the same thread. You just look like a dithering prat when you do that.
-
Also, the video says he went over 100,000 ft....or about 20 miles. And you saw how the land looked. If there are no satellites in orbit, how do we get accurate pictures, from every square inch of the earth, and usually are updated every few months. And don't say balloon's with cameras because there aren't enough balloons on the earth to take that many photos. The distance those pictures are taken from is obviously several hundred miles above the earth. Now balloon would be able to make it to that height. How does google get so many pictures to map the earth?
I have a friend who worked for NASA for 10 years before going into the private sector. I think I will give him a call and see if we can't replicate this test and show you know fish eye lens was used.
Then all the guys with the aluminum foil on their heads would just say I am part of the conspiracy too. I guess everyone is accept for the 10-15 people actually dumb enough to believe this crap. Proof again there is no cure for stupid.
We could all quit debating this. Once and for all, all you have to do is prove it. The burden of proof is with the FEr's....prove us wrong. Just because some fool said so isn't good enough.
-
Diffusion of light is enough to make an airplane disappear on a clear day. City buildings disappear into the murk on a smoggy day. Think of all the weather between you and the rim country. Why would you expect to see mountains at that distance. There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home.
Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?
:P
You can't claim that it's unusual to see 20 miles, perfectly reasonable to see 3000 miles and ludicrous to see 9000 miles in the same thread. You just look like a dithering prat when you do that.
Different circumstances allow for different view distances.
-
The rocket was 9000 miles away from the Antarctica -- How far exactly do you expect to see? ???
Well, as the pressure is about 800 - 900 times less than it is at Denver, and you can see 20 miles from there, I would guess you could see about 800 - 900 times as far. So, about 16,000 - 18,000 miles?
It's 9000 miles away, but also several miles up.
Let's say, 20 miles (random approximation based on the fact that space starts at 30 miles).
That means a hypotenuse of about 9001 miles. Not a big difference, but still significant.
The average atmospheric pressure in Denver is 84 kPa (.82 atm). The average atmospheric pressure at 20 miles up is 6 kPa. That's 14 times more, not 900.
So, that's 240 miles.
Or, we can make the height 30 miles (beginning of space). That's about 1 kPa, or 82 times more. That's 1680 miles. I'm being generous and using the maximum instead of the minimum, BTW.
-
And again, from the rocket one is looking down through the gradient of the atmo"sphere" from altitude. Not looking for an object also at 20 miles height.
And again, Mount Everest would be indiscernible at such distance even in the complete absence of air.
-
Diffusion of light is enough to make an airplane disappear on a clear day. City buildings disappear into the murk on a smoggy day. Think of all the weather between you and the rim country. Why would you expect to see mountains at that distance. There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home.
Denver is 15 to 20 miles distant in this photo from lookout mountain. Think of how small the mountains of the rim country are so many miles away. Why would one expect to see them at all?
:P
You can't claim that it's unusual to see 20 miles, perfectly reasonable to see 3000 miles and ludicrous to see 9000 miles in the same thread. You just look like a dithering prat when you do that.
Different circumstances allow for different view distances.
Correct, which is why his original statement that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles in normal atmosphere near the ground is a complete fallacy, designed to mislead. Trolling revealed.
-
Correct, which is why his original statement that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles in normal atmosphere near the ground is a complete fallacy, designed to mislead. Trolling revealed.
I never said that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles. I said, "There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home."
It is you who are attempting to be misleading, or is English not your native tongue?
-
Correct, which is why his original statement that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles in normal atmosphere near the ground is a complete fallacy, designed to mislead. Trolling revealed.
I never said that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles. I said, "There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home."
It is you who are attempting to be misleading, or is English not your native tongue?
Semantics. Your phrasing and tone of the post was clearly designed to create the impression that you thought it unusual to see much more than 20 miles most of the time.
Trying to defend yourself over your use of exact words is like saying "I could quite easily smash Ski's face in with a hammer" does not imply "I want to smash Ski's face in with a hammer". Sure, the exact meaning is completely different but reading one creates the impression of the other in the reader. Pizza Planet tried the same thing in reverse over in another thread, trying to make out I had claimed RET gravity theories were perfect because I used the phrase "RET has a working theory of gravity". ::)
Your troll-fu is pathetically weak.
-
Saying, "There are days when it rains' in no way implies that it usually rains. I'm tired of your pointless bickering just to argue. If you have something useful to say, say it. If you suffer from poor reading comprehension, rectify it.
-
I love it when the noobs get pedantic to avoid admitting they're wrong.
-
I never said that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles. I said, "There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home."
I love it when the noobs trolls get pedantic to avoid admitting they're wrong.
Oh, the irony. I'm overwhelmed...
-
I never said that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles. I said, "There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home."
I love it when the noobs trolls get pedantic to avoid admitting they're wrong.
Oh, the irony. I'm overwhelmed...
That's not what irony means.
That statement, however, was ironic.
-
I never said that it was unusual to see more than twenty miles. I said, "There are days that I can barely see the mountains 20 miles from my home."
I love it when the noobs trolls get pedantic to avoid admitting they're wrong.
Oh, the irony. I'm overwhelmed...
That's not what irony means.
That statement, however, was ironic.
Good.