RE Picture Proof

Do you know the equivalence principle onle applies over small volumes and times?

Without wanting to make massive, unfounded assumptions, have you even seen that there is an ENORMOUS thread on gravity stickied on the forums?  I believe you will find the equivalence principle is well understood round these parts.

Quote from: liedetector on April 23, 2009, 11:12:59 AM

Do you know the equivalence principle onle applies over small volumes and times?

Without wanting to make massive, unfounded assumptions, have you even seen that there is an ENORMOUS thread on gravity stickied on the forums?  I believe you will find the equivalence principle is well understood round these parts.

It doesn't look like it from Robosteves post. Maybe he's the one that should read the Gravity sticking.

Before you comment on it, perhaps you should read it yourself. That isn't mentioned.

Before you comment on it, perhaps you should read it yourself. That isn't mentioned.

What isn't mentioned? The equivelence principle? So you're telling me to read something that bears no relation to the subject being discussed?

Nice.

The equivalence principle is mentioned, but not Robosteve's theory.

The equivalence principle is mentioned, but not Robosteve's theory.

I'm confused. What's your point?

Wait, never mind. Wrong thread.

Do you know the equivalence principle onle applies over small volumes and times?

I am very well acquainted with the Equivalence Principle, thank you very much. Why do you ask?

Quote from: liedetector on April 23, 2009, 11:12:59 AM

Do you know the equivalence principle onle applies over small volumes and times?

I am very well acquainted with the Equivalence Principle, thank you very much. Why do you ask?

Then you should understand that the Equivalence Principle does not apply to the earth as a whole.

I am very well acquainted with the Equivalence Principle, thank you very much. Why do you ask?

As you've been told already, the equivelence principle only applies over small volumes and times. Like markjo says, not the whole earth.

So your argument that the equivelence principle can somehow be used to prove a flat earth is false.

So your argument that the equivelence principle can somehow be used to prove a flat earth is false.

I have never attempted to use the Equivalence Principle to prove a flat Earth.

Quote from: liedetector on April 24, 2009, 08:25:28 AM

So your argument that the equivelence principle can somehow be used to prove a flat earth is false.

I have never attempted to use the Equivalence Principle to prove a flat Earth.

Then why do you support the UA?  The EP is the standard reason that FE'ers use for invoking the UA, isn't it?

Then why do you support the UA?  The EP is the standard reason that FE'ers use for invoking the UA, isn't it?

There's a difference between the Equivalence Principle being compatible with a flat Earth, and proving it.

I don't see any Earth in that picture.

Do you see one here?

Quote from: EnigmaZV on April 14, 2009, 03:19:11 PM

I don't see any Earth in that picture.

Do you see one here?

Nope, I just see a photoshop.

Nope, I just see a photoshop.

So do you have any evidence of this?

You see, in Photoshop, usually flaws can be pointed out such as distortions, ripples, creases etc.

Or are you simply assuming?

This was a good shoop,but I see a few flaws around the edge of the "earth".
Also,I want a hat like that.

This was a good shoop,but I see a few flaws around the edge of the "earth".
Also,I want a hat like that.

Really?  Do you care to point out these "flaws?"  Also, what "hat" are you referring to?

That hat





Look at the edge and you will see what I mean.

Actually, this is what happens when you resize a picture.

Here is the scan in it's original size.

Point out exactly what you mean.  Don't just say "Look at the edge."  I do not see what you mean.



Then, take a look at this video and tell me how they captured that Kodak moment:

There are some minor pixel halos around the land mass edges.

There are some minor pixel halos around the land mass edges.

Which could be caused by the scanner.  I've seen worse.  That is the drawbacks of a digital photo which is the only thing keeping medium and high format cameras such as a Hasselblad selling.

There are of course photos of the earth taken from the moon in 1969 with a 35mm.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 30, 2009, 06:38:24 PM

There are some minor pixel halos around the land mass edges.

Which could be caused by the scanner.  I've seen worse.  That is the drawbacks of a digital photo which is the only thing keeping medium and high format cameras such as a Hasselblad selling.

There are of course photos of the earth taken from the moon in 1969 with a 35mm.

The other drawback is the ability to produce falsified photographs much easier.

Quote from: bgamelson on April 30, 2009, 07:35:03 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 30, 2009, 06:38:24 PM

There are some minor pixel halos around the land mass edges.

Which could be caused by the scanner.  I've seen worse.  That is the drawbacks of a digital photo which is the only thing keeping medium and high format cameras such as a Hasselblad selling.

There are of course photos of the earth taken from the moon in 1969 with a 35mm.

The other drawback is the ability to produce falsified photographs much easier.

Taken from the moon in 1969, this famous photo existed long before digital photos made their debut.

The other drawback is the ability to produce falsified photographs much easier.

The potential ability to produce falsified photos doesn't imply that the photos have been falsified. I often wonder why people seem to assume that any photos that disagree with their model must be fake.

Waste of Mind: You Fail. So ALL photos of a Round Earth are faked. And what the hell would you know about how the Earth looks from space if you don't even believe it looks like that?

I bet the guys that photoshop up all these pics get paid a crap ton of money.  I want that job.

I bet the guys that photoshop up all these pics get paid a crap ton of money.  I want that job.

Wrong. No one gets paid. The conspiracy is only a few people. Maybe just two or three people in the whole wide world. That is how the conspiracy has remained in place for so long, because no one knows about it. Except a few people.

Why then does space tourism exist? Would the conspiracy be willing to risk information loss after a non-involved person sees the truth?

Who said they would see the truth? Why not just freefall and screens?