New - Free fall from space record attempt!

Approximately 42 seconds into this video, we see the capsule open.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57532099/officials-say-skydiver-broke-the-speed-of-sound/?tag=contentAux;mostPopular

Wow look at the pictures! its close enough to space to be space. I wouldn't want to take off my helmet that far from our very very non flat spherical planet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19947159

Quote from: Ski on October 09, 2012, 04:40:46 PM

So in your mind the space shuttle, for example, is free from earth's gravitational pull?

Actually the Space Shuttle or any object in orbit is in constant free fall. The reason it doesn't crash into earth is because it's going just fast enough to miss.

Free fall is because of gravity. that's why the shuttle etc acceleration towards the earth. if you want to be completely free of the earth's gravity travel infinity away from it

To Flat earhters its a nasa conspiracy even when its not done by nasa some how. For god sake its a nasa conspiracy if its done by them some how.

To Flat earhters its a nasa conspiracy even when its not done by nasa some how. For god sake its a nasa conspiracy if its done by them some how.

The guy who completed the jump has neglected to mention he saw a flat earth. he must be in on the conspiracy lol

The guy who completed the jump has neglected to mention he saw a flat earth. he must be in on the conspiracy lol

you mean, redbull is also part of conspiracy...?

The problem with the whole "fish eye lens" distortion explanation is that it doesn't explain away why we can only see a small area of the world.  And not even the whole day side. 

The problem with the whole "fish eye lens" distortion explanation is that it doesn't explain away why we can only see a small area of the world.

That's not too surprising considering it's not intended to explain why we can only see a small area of the world.

Quote from: FlatOrange on October 09, 2012, 09:45:40 PM

It is an interesting read.  Do Flat Earthers have no room for gray area?

"This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI)."

"Although the United States does not officially define a boundary of space, the U.S. definition of an astronaut, which is still held today, is a person who has flown more than 50 miles (~80 km) above mean sea level. (This is approximately the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere.) This definition of an astronaut had been somewhat controversial, due to differing definitions between the United States military and NASA.[8]"

"International law defines the lower boundary of space as the lowest perigee attainable by an orbiting space vehicle, but does not specify an altitude. Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is approximately 150 km (93 mi), while an object can maintain an elliptical orbit with perigee as low as 129 km (80 mi) with propulsion. [10]"

Do you see what I'm trying to say?  There's still drag above 100 km... they chose an arbitrary distance to call the edge.  It's not a natural law or anything.

You are still missing my point.  How does the fact that somebody is going to fall prove a round Earth?

    How about look at the photos taken! Doe you notice the curvature? Let me guess you'll say it's camera distortion a some lame shit right?       http://photogallery.thestar.com/1271684

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 09, 2012, 10:29:10 PM

Quote from: FlatOrange on October 09, 2012, 09:45:40 PM

It is an interesting read.  Do Flat Earthers have no room for gray area?

"This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI)."

"Although the United States does not officially define a boundary of space, the U.S. definition of an astronaut, which is still held today, is a person who has flown more than 50 miles (~80 km) above mean sea level. (This is approximately the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere.) This definition of an astronaut had been somewhat controversial, due to differing definitions between the United States military and NASA.[8]"

"International law defines the lower boundary of space as the lowest perigee attainable by an orbiting space vehicle, but does not specify an altitude. Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is approximately 150 km (93 mi), while an object can maintain an elliptical orbit with perigee as low as 129 km (80 mi) with propulsion. [10]"

Do you see what I'm trying to say?  There's still drag above 100 km... they chose an arbitrary distance to call the edge.  It's not a natural law or anything.

You are still missing my point.  How does the fact that somebody is going to fall prove a round Earth?

    How about look at the photos taken! Doe you notice the curvature? Let me guess you'll say it's camera distortion a some lame shit right?       http://photogallery.thestar.com/1271684

Euhm the earth looks very flat in those pictures.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 09, 2012, 10:29:10 PM

Quote from: FlatOrange on October 09, 2012, 09:45:40 PM

It is an interesting read.  Do Flat Earthers have no room for gray area?

"This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI)."

"Although the United States does not officially define a boundary of space, the U.S. definition of an astronaut, which is still held today, is a person who has flown more than 50 miles (~80 km) above mean sea level. (This is approximately the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere.) This definition of an astronaut had been somewhat controversial, due to differing definitions between the United States military and NASA.[8]"

"International law defines the lower boundary of space as the lowest perigee attainable by an orbiting space vehicle, but does not specify an altitude. Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is approximately 150 km (93 mi), while an object can maintain an elliptical orbit with perigee as low as 129 km (80 mi) with propulsion. [10]"

Do you see what I'm trying to say?  There's still drag above 100 km... they chose an arbitrary distance to call the edge.  It's not a natural law or anything.

You are still missing my point.  How does the fact that somebody is going to fall prove a round Earth?

    How about look at the photos taken! Doe you notice the curvature? Let me guess you'll say it's camera distortion a some lame shit right?       http://photogallery.thestar.com/1271684

Beorn is correct about most of those pictures... but even the ones that do appear to show curvature are so obviously distorted that I don't understand how anything but a seriously deluded mind could deny it.

Beorn is correct about most of those pictures... but even the ones that do appear to show curvature are so obviously distorted that I don't understand how anything but a seriously deluded mind could deny it.

So how is the 5th picture "obviously distorted", yet Felix and the capsule aren't?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 16, 2012, 04:57:07 PM

Beorn is correct about most of those pictures... but even the ones that do appear to show curvature are so obviously distorted that I don't understand how anything but a seriously deluded mind could deny it.

So how is the 5th picture "obviously distorted", yet Felix and the capsule aren't?

They're in the foreground of the picture.

So how is the 5th picture "obviously distorted", yet Felix and the capsule aren't?

It's hard to tell for Felix (and he is near the center of the frame, where there'd be the least distortion), but the capsule does actually look pretty distorted. As a quick test, place a straight edge of some kind against the right side of the capsule, and you'll see it's not straight even though it should be. If you do this for some other edges you might even be able to produce a crude correction for the image..

Surely no one who believes in the standard dimensions for the earth would think that so much curvature should be visible in that picture. Not from such a meager height. If that much curvature were actually visible without distortion you'd be looking at a major part of the earth, and major continents would easily be recognizable.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 16, 2012, 04:57:07 PM

Beorn is correct about most of those pictures... but even the ones that do appear to show curvature are so obviously distorted that I don't understand how anything but a seriously deluded mind could deny it.

So how is the 5th picture "obviously distorted", yet Felix and the capsule aren't?

Here is a picture from ground level.  Does this convince you that the camera distorts the image?

Maybe we should shy away from discussing the horizon of the earth from the pictures. Instead we should discuss the geographical properties we can see and how they appear to not show a flat earth at all.

Quote from: jrobinson3k1 on October 16, 2012, 05:09:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 16, 2012, 04:57:07 PM

Beorn is correct about most of those pictures... but even the ones that do appear to show curvature are so obviously distorted that I don't understand how anything but a seriously deluded mind could deny it.

So how is the 5th picture "obviously distorted", yet Felix and the capsule aren't?

Here is a picture from ground level.  Does this convince you that the camera distorts the image?

Thanks for providing this clear evidence of how RE'ers are trying to use manipulated videos to further their globularist goals.

Those images were taken with a wide angle lens. You can see the uniform apparent curvature by the lense causing everything to appear to bend around the center of some of the images.

Quote from: jrobinson3k1 on October 16, 2012, 05:09:44 PM

So how is the 5th picture "obviously distorted", yet Felix and the capsule aren't?

It's hard to tell for Felix (and he is near the center of the frame, where there'd be the least distortion), but the capsule does actually look pretty distorted. As a quick test, place a straight edge of some kind against the right side of the capsule, and you'll see it's not straight even though it should be. If you do this for some other edges you might even be able to produce a crude correction for the image..

Surely no one who believes in the standard dimensions for the earth would think that so much curvature should be visible in that picture. Not from such a meager height. If that much curvature were actually visible without distortion you'd be looking at a major part of the earth, and major continents would easily be recognizable.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty here, but let's face it: most of the posters here will never turn a critical eye to their position before using this kind of dubious "evidence" against flat earth theory. Just reading the posts in a thread like this makes me despair.