A view from Everest

The fact that nobody in this thread, except Space Tourist, knows that to form a complete 360 degree panorama, the horizon will be made flat so that images actually link together properly astounds me.

So those images don't link up properly naturally? In other words, there are sudden discontinuities in the horizon when one is actually looking at the view?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on May 16, 2010, 01:26:39 AM

The fact that nobody in this thread, except Space Tourist, knows that to form a complete 360 degree panorama, the horizon will be made flat so that images actually link together properly astounds me.

So those images don't link up properly naturally? In other words, there are sudden discontinuities in the horizon when one is actually looking at the view?

In cases where the horizon is visibly curved, correct.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 02:03:24 AM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on May 16, 2010, 01:26:39 AM

The fact that nobody in this thread, except Space Tourist, knows that to form a complete 360 degree panorama, the horizon will be made flat so that images actually link together properly astounds me.

So those images don't link up properly naturally? In other words, there are sudden discontinuities in the horizon when one is actually looking at the view?

In cases where the horizon is visibly curved, correct.

Interesting. Could you provide an image of such a discontinuity?

The fact that nobody in this thread, except Space Tourist, knows that to form a complete 360 degree panorama, the horizon will be made flat so that images actually link together properly astounds me.

I knew that, and I thought it was clear from my post that I did.

Say you are standing in the middle of a large  hula-hoop on the ground. When you look at it in one direction, it appears to curve towards you. But if you were to take a panoramic picture of that ring, it would show up as a straight line across the bottom, because there is no other way to represent it.

The Everest picture has the same effect, the earth just appears as a very large ring below you.

Say you are standing in the middle of a large  hula-hoop on the ground. When you look at it in one direction, it appears to curve towards you. But if you were to take a panoramic picture of that ring, it would show up as a straight line across the bottom, because there is no other way to represent it.

The Everest picture has the same effect, the earth just appears as a very large ring below you.

I asked for an image of a discontinuity in the horizon. Can you provide one or not?

Are pictures now considered valid evidence on this forum?

Are pictures now considered valid evidence on this forum?

If you provide an image of a discontinuity in the horizon as seen from the peak of Everest, complete with a source and at least one peer review which confirms its validity, I will publicly affirm a belief in RET.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 15, 2010, 04:43:30 AM

It is NOT straight. I CAN'T draw a straight line.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3659/18340957.png

I don't see what your inability to draw a straight line has to do with the shape of the Earth.

Could your issues stem from attempting to draw the line over the natural horizon but not the true horizon?

Do draw a proper straight line then.

The fact that nobody in this thread, except Space Tourist, knows that to form a complete 360 degree panorama, the horizon will be made flat so that images actually link together properly astounds me.

The fact that REers are so brainwashed that they see curvature when it's clearly and demonstrably not there frightens me a little, so I guess we're kind of even.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 06:52:58 AM

Are pictures now considered valid evidence on this forum?

If you provide an image of a discontinuity in the horizon as seen from the peak of Everest, complete with a source and at least one peer review which confirms its validity, I will publicly affirm a belief in RET.

How about this?

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39

I would gladly provide the full text of the article if I knew how to upload PDFs to this site, as I have access to several peer-reviewed journals through my university.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 16, 2010, 06:56:21 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 06:52:58 AM

Are pictures now considered valid evidence on this forum?

If you provide an image of a discontinuity in the horizon as seen from the peak of Everest, complete with a source and at least one peer review which confirms its validity, I will publicly affirm a belief in RET.

How about this?

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39

I would gladly provide the full text of the article if I knew how to upload PDFs to this site, as I have access to several peer-reviewed journals through my university.

The globularist in the article claims that he can see the curvature from 35000 feet. The summit of Everest is 29000 feet above Sea Level. I don't think Parsifal will be rushing to declare his apostasy just yet!

In his conclusions, he says this:

The
threshold elevation for detecting curvature would
seem to be somewhat less than 35; 000 ft but not
as low as 14; 000 ft. Photographically, curvature may
be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft.

How about this?

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39

I would gladly provide the full text of the article if I knew how to upload PDFs to this site, as I have access to several peer-reviewed journals through my university.

I am unfortunately on a slow connection at the moment which makes downloading even moderately large files impractical; if you could post a single image I will look into the matter further when I get the opportunity.

However, I should point out that if all this document shows is curvature, then it's not what I asked for. I asked for a discontinuity.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 08:31:51 AM

How about this?

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39

I would gladly provide the full text of the article if I knew how to upload PDFs to this site, as I have access to several peer-reviewed journals through my university.

I am unfortunately on a slow connection at the moment which makes downloading even moderately large files impractical; if you could post a single image I will look into the matter further when I get the opportunity.

However, I should point out that if all this document shows is curvature, then it's not what I asked for. I asked for a discontinuity.

Have a little patience, you asked for a very specific document, and my search is still underway. Research takes time, and I have a few other obligations in my life. I will post the images you asked for just as soon as I find them.

I posted that article merely to make sure we were all on the same page in that curvature could be measured from high altitudes.

EDIT: The panorama from the OP was taken by Roderick Mackenzie, and is the only known panoramic image from the top of Mount Everest, I am endeavoring now to find the original photographs from which that image was compiled.

EDIT2: This is a still version of the panorama, as you can see, the horizon appears to have some sort of "wave" effect a result of stitching together different photographs. There appear to be 4 distinct "humps", meaning the final image was probably produced from 4 separate images.

EDIT2: This is a still version of the panorama, as you can see, the horizon appears to have some sort of "wave" effect a result of stitching together different photographs. There appear to be 4 distinct "humps", meaning the final image was probably produced from 4 separate images.

Obviously stitching together multiple photographs can produce discontinuities if the edges don't line up. That isn't evidence that a discontinuity exists, only that the photographer was inept. What I would like is a single image which shows that such a discontinuity exists.

It appears you misunderstood the point (most likely deliberately). Those discontinuities do not exist in any single photograph, but rather when attempting to merge multiple photographs into a single panorama.

It appears you misunderstood the point (most likely deliberately). Those discontinuities do not exist in any single photograph, but rather when attempting to merge multiple photographs into a single panorama.

If the discontinuities do not exist in reality, then the photographs would match up perfectly because they are images of adjacent regions.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 06:17:35 PM

It appears you misunderstood the point (most likely deliberately). Those discontinuities do not exist in any single photograph, but rather when attempting to merge multiple photographs into a single panorama.

If the discontinuities do not exist in reality, then the photographs would match up perfectly because they are images of adjacent regions.

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? Try it out and get back to me. You can even use the simple hula-hoop method I detailed before as a proof-of-concept. You would be doing the experiment yourself so that might (not knowing you I cannot say for sure) eliminate the ineptitude of the photographer.

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? Try it out and get back to me. You can even use the simple hula-hoop method I detailed before as a proof-of-concept. You would be doing the experiment yourself so that might (not knowing you I cannot say for sure) eliminate the ineptitude of the photographer.

If the images do not match up perfectly, then they are not images of adjacent regions. This can be a result of inept photography.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 06:48:50 PM

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? Try it out and get back to me. You can even use the simple hula-hoop method I detailed before as a proof-of-concept. You would be doing the experiment yourself so that might (not knowing you I cannot say for sure) eliminate the ineptitude of the photographer.

If the images do not match up perfectly, then they are not images of adjacent regions. This can be a result of inept photography.

Once again, try it yourself. Take pictures of a large-ish ring on the ground around you, and then try to line up the ring in adjacent photos.

I look forward to reading the results of your study.

Once again, try it yourself. Take pictures of a large-ish ring on the ground around you, and then try to line up the ring in adjacent photos.

If I were to try it myself, and the images did not match up, I could only conclude that I had made an error in taking my photographs. Therefore, this would prove nothing.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 07:21:04 PM

Once again, try it yourself. Take pictures of a large-ish ring on the ground around you, and then try to line up the ring in adjacent photos.

If I were to try it myself, and the images did not match up, I could only conclude that I had made an error in taking my photographs. Therefore, this would prove nothing.

But your senses have evolved over the course of billions of years, how could you possibly make a mistake?

I look forward to reading the results of your study.

But your senses have evolved over the course of billions of years, how could you possibly make a mistake?

Those senses haven't evolved in an environment in which cameras exist; therefore, they are not optimised for taking photographs.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 07:31:52 PM

But your senses have evolved over the course of billions of years, how could you possibly make a mistake?

Those senses haven't evolved in an environment in which cameras exist; therefore, they are not optimised for taking photographs.

People have been visually representing the world around them for tens of thousands of years, is that not enough time?

Besides, you may attempt the experiment and find that things work out exactly as you say they will and you may be proven 100% right, why not give it a try?

People have been visually representing the world around them for tens of thousands of years, is that not enough time?

They haven't been pointing little boxes at things and pressing a button, and knowing how to get good results from it, for more than a couple of centuries at most.

Besides, you may attempt the experiment and find that things work out exactly as you say they will and you may be proven 100% right, why not give it a try?

I am 100% right; the only variable factor I would be measuring is the quality of the photography.

You'll never know until you try! 

You'll never know until you try!  

I'll never know how good a photographer I am, certainly. But that's not the issue we are discussing here; clearly, the photographer on Everest had enough skill with a camera to produce photographs that could be used to form a panorama.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 16, 2010, 08:07:52 PM

You'll never know until you try! 

I'll never know how good a photographer I am, certainly. But that's not the issue we are discussing here; clearly the photographer on Everest had enough skill with a camera to produce photographs that could be used to form a panorama.

Yet he still somehow produced photos that had discontinuities between them when merged together. Strange how that works, huh?

Yet he still somehow produced photos that had discontinuities between them when merged together. Strange how that works, huh?

Not really. If I'd been in a privileged opportunity to create a panorama from Everest, I'd have tried again if the first attempt didn't work out too.