Round Earthers agree

  • 117 Replies
  • 8751 Views
?

tappet

  • 2162
Round Earthers agree
« on: March 05, 2014, 12:11:20 AM »
The round earth community seem to agree with each other that you cannot see left to right earth curvature on the horizon whilst
standing on a beach.
Now when I stand on a beach it looks like I can see curvature.
Would this be just an illusion?

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2014, 02:32:17 AM »
I can easily see a curve, but I am not sure whether I am actually seeing the curvature, or if its an optical illusion...

But yeah, you can see 'something'

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2014, 03:50:21 AM »
I can easily see a curve, but I am not sure whether I am actually seeing the curvature, or if its an optical illusion...

But yeah, you can see 'something'
Turn your head 90 degrees or look at up upside down.

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2014, 04:57:09 AM »
cool :)  I'll try that!

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2014, 10:44:20 AM »
This is an image taken in northern Wisconsin, USA.
 

 
I've extracted its EXIF data and the focal length of the lens was nominally 30mm, and which is considered a mild wide-angle lens.

Note that the horizon appears curved downwards a couple of degrees.  Most flat earthers would assume that this is due to barrel distortion caused by the relatively wide-angle lens.

Only one problem.  If it was barrel distortion (which it's not) the horizon would appear to be curving upwards by a couple of degrees, because the horizon line is well below the lens's horizontal optical axis.  What you're seeing here could be described as "pincushion distortion" by a photographer only if he was unaware of the focal length of the lens.

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
 
 

 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2014, 10:57:28 AM »
Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera. Both sides should match up if the Earth was a globe and they clearly don't.




*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2014, 11:13:56 AM »
Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera. Both sides should match up if the Earth was a globe and they clearly don't.


The camera wasn't mounted (levelled) on a tripod.  It was hand-held, hence the slight "tilt".  I could've rotated it with Photoshop, but I didn't want to be accused of manipulating the image.
 

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2014, 11:18:24 AM »
Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera. Both sides should match up if the Earth was a globe and they clearly don't.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/o401.jpg/][IMG]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3421/o401.jpg
Indeed, as you've noted, it's not level.  Since it's not level, both sides don't match up.  Had it been level, both sides would have matched up.

Perhaps you could see what happens if you draw a straight line from one end of the horizon to the other.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2014, 11:24:28 AM »
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right. Anotehr fail I'm afraid.




*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2014, 11:43:30 AM »
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right.

So amongst a hundred other things of a technical nature that you obviously don't understand, we can now add photography.  There'd only be an "equal" gap if the camera was absolutely horizontal, which I've already said was NOT the case here.

Quote
Another fail I'm afraid.

For you my friend... yes.  I'm sorry.
 



*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2014, 11:45:02 AM »
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny.  Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish. 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2014, 11:45:40 AM »
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right.

So amongst a hundred other things of a technical nature that you obviously don't understand, we can now add photography.  There'd only be an "equal" gap if the camera was absolutely horizontal, which I've already said was NOT the case here.

Quote
You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?
Another fail I'm afraid.

For you my friend... yes.  I'm sorry.
You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2014, 11:53:13 AM »
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right. Anotehr fail I'm afraid.

Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera.
You've already put forth the answer as to why it's not even at both ends.

Now, instead of a big thick line, try setting your straight line tool to 1 pixel, start at one end on the exact edge of the waterline, and draw across to the other end on the exact edge of the water line.

You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?
  Yes, we understand.  Tilting up and down will have equal ends.  Tilting left or right will not.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2014, 11:53:36 AM »
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny.  Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish.

They can't help it. Even the math which shows them that such a thing is impossible is not enough to overcome the instinctual desire to cling to their belief with any shred of "evidence".
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2014, 11:55:42 AM »
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny.  Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish.

Could you give us some simple mathematical evidence to support your claims about the curvature shown in this image being bogus?  Do you disagree that the horizon, particularly when viewed from a high elevation or at a very wide field of view would have a slight curvature (as this image in fact demonstrates).

And what in particular leads you to believe that the image is distorted in some way?  How would that alleged distortion be achieved?  Could a camera lens with an extremely long focal length—say 1200mm—produce this apparent curve?
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2014, 12:08:39 PM »
Even the math which shows them that such a thing is impossible is not enough to overcome the instinctual desire to cling to their belief with any shred of "evidence".


It's actually quite bizarre that whenever someone (a round earther like me) posts a photographic image clearly showing what the flat earthers disbelieve, there's a flood of snide personal insults, and and an all-out attack on what's allegedly wrong with the image itself.

Notice too that in their sniping, the flat earthers seldom (never?) post an image of their own of any similar scenario, and which would help support their standpoint of a perfectly level horizon.  They're always ready with the putdowns, but never ready with any evidence in support of those putdowns.

It's also funny to note how the flat earthers describe round earth evidence as "shreds" that the round earthers "cling" to "instinctively".  They must all have the word "pejorative" tattooed on their foreheads at birth?
 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2014, 12:20:12 PM »
Yep! Still makes no sense. You see, it's supposed to show a globe curvature which should be EQUAL at both ends as it there should be an equal gap at both ends, not just one end, which we an see on the left side and yet nothing on the right. Anotehr fail I'm afraid.

Someone needs to put a spirit level on the camera.
You've already put forth the answer as to why it's not even at both ends.

Now, instead of a big thick line, try setting your straight line tool to 1 pixel, start at one end on the exact edge of the waterline, and draw across to the other end on the exact edge of the water line.

You can tip the sea up into any angle and you should still have equal ends on a GLOBE model. Can't you understand that?
  Yes, we understand.  Tilting up and down will have equal ends.  Tilting left or right will not.
Ok, I've went from dead centre with the thick line over the thin line.

If your Earth was a GLOBE, then if I was to put an unbendable stick from the middle, like the thick line/stick in the picture, it should be EQUAL both sides and it isn't. I don't care what the camera position is...the horizon is the horizon whether you tilt it or whatever.
Now this picture does not prove a GLOBE or a flat Earth, as either the picture is doctored or the sea has frozen, as a school of huge whales were about to surface on the left hand side.  ;D

This picture is a waste of time.




Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2014, 12:53:43 PM »
Ok, I've went from dead centre with the thick line over the thin line.
Still not what I said, but closer.  Anyway, the gap between the thin straight line and the water is wider at the ends than in the middle.  Therefor, the horizon is curved in that picture.  Thanks for proving it for us.

Quote
If your Earth was a GLOBE, then if I was to put an unbendable stick from the middle, like the thick line/stick in the picture, it should be EQUAL both sides and it isn't.
Equal if the camera was level, which it wasn't.  Regardless, you line shows it to be curved. 

Quote
I don't care what the camera position is...the horizon is the horizon whether you tilt it or whatever.
And?  A tree is a tree whether you tilt the camera or not.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2014, 01:03:12 PM »
If your Earth was a GLOBE, then if I was to put an unbendable stick from the middle, like the thick line/stick in the picture, it should be EQUAL both sides and it isn't. I don't care what the camera position is...the horizon is the horizon whether you tilt it or whatever.
Now this picture does not prove a GLOBE or a flat Earth, as either the picture is doctored or the sea has frozen, as a school of huge whales were about to surface on the left hand side.
This picture is a waste of time.


Apparently you have no understanding of any optical theory at all?  Not the faintest idea?  Of course it fucking matters what the position of the camera is.  (Sorry about the split infinitive.)  The drop at each side is totally immaterial to the science!  It's the curvature we're talking about.  It wouldn't matter one iota if the apparent "drop" at each side differed by a metre or more—surely even you can grasp that?

The only reason you're claiming that the image is a "waste of time" is simply because you can't seem to understand the very point it's meant to demonstrate.  Which is, of course, the curvature of the horizon.  That's it.
 

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2014, 01:58:25 PM »
For the earth to curve as severely as that picture suggests, it would be tiny.  Every round-earther should immediately throw this example out lest they look foolish.

Could you give us some simple mathematical evidence to support your claims about the curvature shown in this image being bogus? 

No, I'm not going to do the math because I have eye balls and I can see the severity of the curve.  If want to do the math you can Google the formulas.  Try "Find circumference from arc"  or "radius from arc". 

WARNING: You won't like the answer.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2014, 01:00:26 AM »

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
So  the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?

Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2014, 01:20:57 AM »

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
So  the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?
Think about it,, imagine what you would see as you moved round.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2014, 01:22:37 AM »
Notice too that in their sniping, the flat earthers seldom (never?) post an image of their own of any similar scenario, and which would help support their standpoint of a perfectly level horizon. 



Some of you comments are getting boring Geoff.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2014, 01:31:39 AM »

Think about it,, imagine what you would see as you moved round.
So now we have two REers that believe you can see left to right curvature of the horizon whilst standing on the ground.
I really wish you REers could all agree on seeing left to right  curvature from the ground, so we can move on.
I am trying to start here with a solid foundation but it seems like the REers are deliberately stalling me.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2014, 03:21:02 AM »
To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2014, 03:32:27 AM »
To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.
It would unless you were at a height.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2014, 11:50:37 AM »

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
So  the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?

As a long-term experienced photographer, I'm really, really, really having a lot of difficulty accepting that people's knowledge of photography and optics is so limited.  I'm putting it down largely to the modern crop of simple, fully-automatic point and shoot digital cameras.  I use expensive camera bodies and expensive lenses for a reason, and that's to capture the absolute best representation of something occurring in the real world on film.

I can only (politely) suggest that people who're unfamiliar with basic photographic fundamentals and principles do some Google research, and read up about them before commenting on the images (anybody's) posted here.
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2014, 11:52:37 AM »

Some of you comments are getting boring Geoff.

I'm sorry, but reposting these same two images over and over again doesn't make them more convincing each time LOL.
 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2014, 11:54:18 AM »
To hit this from another angle, what would you see if you were standing in the middle of a 10km diameter disc, looking toward the edge? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be a straight line.

And ignorance of this simple, factual  observation is one of the major stumbling blocks for the flat earthers to overcome.
 

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Round Earthers agree
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2014, 11:54:47 AM »

So the slight curvature one sees over an extremely wide expanse of water is definitely not an illusion.  The camera doesn't lie.
So  the camera does not lie. Then with the photo you are trying to use, if the photographer had turned 90degrees and taken another photo it would be curved the same. If he did this four times that would be 360 degrees which would be four curves/arcs. Are you claiming a 360 degree horizon is made of a series of arcs?

As a long-term experienced photographer, I'm really, really, really having a lot of difficulty accepting that people's knowledge of photography and optics is so limited.  I'm putting it down largely to the modern crop of simple, fully-automatic point and shoot digital cameras.  I use expensive camera bodies and expensive lenses for a reason, and that's to capture the absolute best representation of something occurring in the real world on film.

I can only (politely) suggest that people who're unfamiliar with basic photographic fundamentals and principles do some Google research, and read up about them before commenting on the images (anybody's) posted here.
I fully agree!!