NASA Wastes More Tax Dollars

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 23, 2012, 09:22:11 PM

Quote from: zarg on January 23, 2012, 09:20:55 PM

Your point?

Quote from: zarg on January 23, 2012, 09:20:55 PM

Yes, mentioning it 3 replies earlier would have been that much more ideal.

I don't understand this new "answer myself" crusade.

You should really stop acting like PizzaPlanet. Nobody likes that guy. The make-you-reply-to-yourself game is even lamer than the rif.org links.

I'm asking why you felt it worthwhile to point out that I asked Tom to move to the other thread in my third reply instead of my first.

The sixth, and it might have stopped the discussion from continuing since Tom doesn't respond to topics that don't add to the discussion.

The sixth

Do try to read more carefully. The sixth post in the discussion equals my third reply.

and it might have stopped the discussion from continuing

And why would I want that?

Tom doesn't respond to topics that don't add to the discussion.

Clearly, he does.

You're making less and less sense.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 23, 2012, 09:45:06 PM

The sixth

Do try to read more carefully. The sixth post in the discussion equals my third reply.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 23, 2012, 09:45:06 PM

and it might have stopped the discussion from continuing

And why would I want that?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 23, 2012, 09:45:06 PM

Tom doesn't respond to topics that don't add to the discussion.

Clearly, he does.

You're making less and less sense.

I said the discussion, not the topic.

You need to stop doing this thing you do:

Wouldn't it have been better to mention that the first or second post into the derail rather than a page or so later?

I said the discussion, not the topic.

You quote my entire post and then ambiguously reply to only part of it, leaving me wondering what you're referring to.

Your post which I replied to contained both the words "discussion" and "topic". Please tell me which part of my reply you're commenting on and explain what your point is.

You need to stop doing this thing you do:

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 23, 2012, 08:56:25 PM

Wouldn't it have been better to mention that the first or second post into the derail rather than a page or so later?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 24, 2012, 07:43:19 AM

I said the discussion, not the topic.

You quote my entire post and then ambiguously reply to only part of it, leaving me wondering what you're referring to.

Your post which I replied to contained both the words "discussion" and "topic". Please tell me which part of my reply you're commenting on and explain what your point is.

I meant the third part of your quote and assumed you meant he makes posts that don't add to the topic (which he does) but Tom never replies to posts that don't further any type of discussion. There blatantly saying "I don't want to debate this here anymore" will probably result in no replies from Tom.

saying "I don't want to debate this here anymore" will probably result in no replies from Tom.

So your point is that Tom uses even the smallest excuses, such as someone asking him to move to a more appropriate thread, to avoid continuing a discussion. I agree.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on January 24, 2012, 10:08:37 AM

saying "I don't want to debate this here anymore" will probably result in no replies from Tom.

So your point is that Tom uses even the smallest excuses, such as someone asking him to move to a different thread, to avoid continuing a discussion. I agree.

Well, yeah.

Wouldn't it have been better to mention that the first or second post into the derail rather than a page or so later?

Wouldn't it have been better to mention that the first or second post into the derail rather than a page or so later?

 

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 05:48:03 PM

So how is it that we see amateurs obtaining now similar photos from near space as NASA did 30 years ago? Are you also claiming that even efforts such as Space X and South African Large Telescope (SALT) believe that Earth is round and are faking their results?

Amateurs who put up balloons with cameras at the edge of the atmosphere are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some slight curvation to the horizon line.

 i beg to differ. have you not read my post tom?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:26:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2012, 08:21:52 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:17:11 PM

What creates or causes the appearance of this circle?

The sun illuminates the earth, creating a circle of light.

Please provide evidence that supports your conjecture. How did you determine that the Sun creates a circle of light illuminating the Earth? How do you know that it's not an ellipse? Have your traveled to every spot on the Earth on every day of the year to make the observations necessary to know that? You sure seem to be making things up yet again.

Why would a spherical sun sun make an ellipse?

Please read Earth Not a Globe. The sun casts a circular area of light upon the earth.

again i have proved this wrong

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2012, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 23, 2012, 05:30:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2012, 03:27:14 PM

Looking at a circle from an angle makes an oval.

Tom, thanks so much for the concession. I was rather sure that your claim that the cameras were looking down on a circle was wrong, but I really appreciate your saying it here.

Now let's back up to your claim before your error. What causes the ellipse in the first place?

The sun's area of light is a circle. Looking at an angle makes an oval. It does not mean that the sun is projecting an oval shape upon the earth.

Fail troll is fail.  How would a spherical light work as a spotlight?  Makes no sense.  Does it have invisible reflectors all around it to focus it?
 
I suggest you turn on a light bulb without a housing, and see where the light shines.  I assure you it will not work like a flashlight.

I want to hear some magic.

it ould cast a circle of light actually

Quote from: 29silhouette

Why is it, every time one of these high altitude photos is taken from anywhere, it always seems to be the same distance to the 'edge' as every other one.

How do you know what the distance to the edge is?

Ah... my bad, I misunderstood what FE'rs meant when saying the photos of earth from orbit looked 'like a disk' in various threads I've read over time.  I guess it's not "the edge" in those images and videos, but the "day-night terminator".

Is that what this is in this still shot from the beginning of this video?

Quote from: 29silhouette

If FE did one of these 'home-made' high altitude balloon photo shoots from somewhere supposedly close to said 'edge', then maybe they'd have the proof they need.

Sometimes the high altitude shoot is near the day-night terminator.

But none of these amateurs are doing these experiments near nightfall, where the balloon can be lost in the darkness. All of the experiments are done during daylight hours so the balloon can be recovered.

I guess you completely missed the part about GPS, also, is sending a ballon with a cooler hanging from it up into the sky at night really a good idea?  I'm sure random nightime air traffic would love that.

Anyway, there you go Tom.  Get a group together, and send up a balloon at night to get a photo of the entire big flat circle of light from a distance.  That would be some significant proof.

The sun's area of light is a circle.

I suppose I'd have to agree here, the illuminated area being a circle that is.  Put a ball on the other side of a dark room, and shine a light at it.  What does the illuminated area look like?  A circle.  It's like viewing a 'dome' from directly overhead, it looks like a circle.

Ah... my bad, I misunderstood what FE'rs meant when saying the photos of earth from orbit looked 'like a disk' in various threads I've read over time.  I guess it's not "the edge" in those images and videos, but the "day-night terminator".

Correct.

Is that what this is in this still shot from the beginning of this video?

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3812/horizon.gif

Images from the ISS have been modified to warp the curvature and make it look like the camera is higher than it really is. The amount of curvature seen is a fabrication.

Quote

Ah... my bad, I misunderstood what FE'rs meant when saying the photos of earth from orbit looked 'like a disk' in various threads I've read over time.  I guess it's not "the edge" in those images and videos, but the "day-night terminator".

Correct.

Tom, what evidence do you have that the "edge" seen in very high altitude photographs is indeed the day/night terminator?  Has anyone ever calculated the diameter of of the sun's "spotlight" to see if it matches the curvature seen in these photographs?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 23, 2012, 09:32:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2012, 06:25:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 23, 2012, 05:30:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2012, 03:27:14 PM

Looking at a circle from an angle makes an oval.

Tom, thanks so much for the concession. I was rather sure that your claim that the cameras were looking down on a circle was wrong, but I really appreciate your saying it here.

Now let's back up to your claim before your error. What causes the ellipse in the first place?

The sun's area of light is a circle. Looking at an angle makes an oval. It does not mean that the sun is projecting an oval shape upon the earth.

Fail troll is fail.  How would a spherical light work as a spotlight?  Makes no sense.  Does it have invisible reflectors all around it to focus it?
 
I suggest you turn on a light bulb without a housing, and see where the light shines.  I assure you it will not work like a flashlight.

I want to hear some magic.

it ould cast a circle of light actually

On the earth yes, but it should also light the moon unless it acts like a spotlight.

Tom, what evidence do you have that the "edge" seen in very high altitude photographs is indeed the day/night terminator?

The proof is in the pudding. The earth is flat. The sun casts a circular area of light. Therefore from high altitudes you are looking down at a circle.

Has anyone ever calculated the diameter of of the sun's "spotlight" to see if it matches the curvature seen in these photographs?

It's not possible to measure the size of the sun's spotlight in amateur edge-of-space photography. You cannot see how far it reaches into the distance.

Quote from: markjo on January 25, 2012, 02:49:24 PM

Tom, what evidence do you have that the "edge" seen in very high altitude photographs is indeed the day/night terminator?

The proof is in the pudding. The earth is flat. The sun casts a circular area of light. Therefore from high altitudes you are looking down at a circle.

Unless of course the actual terminator happens to be visible in the photo, as well as the horizon. Then you're looking down at two circles, I presume?

Anyway, back to this:

Tom knows that the curvature is visible in both night and day shots, he has posted several examples himself. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Here's a video of the same thing. There are even more still on the Project Soar website. Tom just likes to pretend he can't see it.

Are you ready to stop pretending you're blind yet, Tom?

Quote from: markjo on January 25, 2012, 02:49:24 PM

Tom, what evidence do you have that the "edge" seen in very high altitude photographs is indeed the day/night terminator?

The proof is in the pudding. The earth is flat. The sun casts a circular area of light. Therefore from high altitudes you are looking down at a circle.

Quote

Has anyone ever calculated the diameter of of the sun's "spotlight" to see if it matches the curvature seen in these photographs?

It's not possible to measure the size of the sun's spotlight in amateur edge-of-space photography. You cannot see how far it reaches into the distance.

its possible actually. just measure it from the ground. the data is readily available to you

Anyway, back to this:

Quote from: zarg on January 23, 2012, 08:54:06 PM

Tom knows that the curvature is visible in both night and day shots, he has posted several examples himself. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Here's a video of the same thing. There are even more still on the Project Soar website. Tom just likes to pretend he can't see it.

Are you ready to stop pretending you're blind yet, Tom?

That video is alleged to have been taken at 39 thousand feet, the cruising altitude of an international flight. There is no curvature at that altitude. The camera must be looking through something.

TheEngineer, a pilot on this forum, tells us that he has not witnessed curvature on any international flight.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

its possible actually. just measure it from the ground. the data is readily available to you

How do you measure the area of the sun's spotlight from the ground?

Quote from: markjo on January 25, 2012, 02:49:24 PM

Tom, what evidence do you have that the "edge" seen in very high altitude photographs is indeed the day/night terminator?

The proof is in the pudding. The earth is flat. The sun casts a circular area of light. Therefore from high altitudes you are looking down at a circle.

Ah, so it has to be true in order for the observations to fit your model instead of the other way around.  Got it.

BTW, the line is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Quote

Has anyone ever calculated the diameter of of the sun's "spotlight" to see if it matches the curvature seen in these photographs?

It's not possible to measure the size of the sun's spotlight in amateur edge-of-space photography. You cannot see how far it reaches into the distance.

I'm guessing that it's not possible to calculate the size of the sun's spotlight either.  How convenient.

Quote from: squevil on January 25, 2012, 05:41:22 PM

its possible actually. just measure it from the ground. the data is readily available to you

How do you measure the area of the sun's spotlight from the ground?

never heard of daytime? the times for sun rize and sunsets are available. wouldnt be hard to work out

The camera must be looking through something.

You can't use this copout anymore. I addressed this in my thread. Granted, I don't know the source of that particular youtube video, but it is showing the same thing as you can see on Project Soar. The specs of the still camera and video camera used for Project Soar are both documented and there is no window.

Here's another video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">sunset at 81,000 feet.
The stills can be found on flickr.


(Full size)

This photo was taken on November 9, 2011 using a Canon PowerShot SD870 IS.

Still gonna play blind, Tom?

Barrel Roll.

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Barrel Roll.

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Thanks Tom for the journal article that actually says that the Earth is round!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 25, 2012, 09:45:40 PM

Barrel Roll.

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Thanks Tom for the journal article that actually says that the Earth is round!

Photographs purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are always suspect because virtually all camera lenses project an image that suffers from barrel distortion. To accurately assess curvature from a photograph, the horizon must be placed precisely in the center of the image, i.e., on the optical axis.

Neglecting to even skim the article makes you look lazy, or is that your reading comprehension handicap showing again?

Look at the photos, Tom. Remember your barrel distortion copout only works if the horizon is at the top of the frame. In most of the pictures it is not. In some it's even in the bottom half, yet the curvature of the horizon is still convex.

Funny how you didn't mention barrel distortion when you looked at the daytime photos. Starting to sweat, are you? If the camera causes this distortion, then why doesn't the curvature appear that much stronger during the daytime? Or is the circle of light cast by the sun actually a square now?  Come on, Tom. You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 25, 2012, 10:06:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 25, 2012, 09:45:40 PM

Barrel Roll.

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Thanks Tom for the journal article that actually says that the Earth is round!

Quote

Photographs purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are always suspect because virtually all camera lenses project an image that suffers from barrel distortion. To accurately assess curvature from a photograph, the horizon must be placed precisely in the center of the image, i.e., on the optical axis.

Neglecting to even skim the article makes you look lazy, or is that your reading comprehension handicap showing again?

I so happy that you made yourself so clear--and wrong. Thanks!

I did not speak about any photos, did I? The article is quite clear that the curvature of the Earth can be and has been detected.

Quote

Is that what this is in this still shot from the beginning of this video?

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3812/horizon.gif

Images from the ISS have been modified to warp the curvature and make it look like the camera is higher than it really is. The amount of curvature seen is a fabrication.

And if that image (and video) hadn't been modified to show curvature (as you claim), what then, would we be looking at in that image?

Let's just ignore the curvature completely.  What are we looking at?