Simple Geometry Shows The True Shape Of Earth (100% certain).

You can clearly see a windmill being restored height of camera: 1.5 feet above sea level, distance Horizon should be viewable 1.5 Miles using this basic calculator:  http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm however in this video using a camera's optical zoom we can actually see at least 6 times farther then we should be able to on a convex (ball) Earth.

Simple Geometry if Earth is:

Concave: 1 part Sky 1 part Earth.
Flat: 2 parts Sky, 1 part Earth.
Convex: 3 parts Sky 1 part Earth.
 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Note: This image my base as calculated was wrong, this guy is only about 5.5 feet off the ground (but 1.5 feet above sea level) and the starting milage is about 1.5 miles to get 1.5, 3, 6, 10 miles in that order but still the point remains even though the base guess was off by about 1.1 feet. Edit: Further examination of this shows the guy was actually standing around 5.5 feet above sea level (slight camera hunch on tripod maybe? With sea level rising at least 4 feet in the distance which gives you 1.5 feet above sea level) Edit: Also the 1x, 4x ect is optical zoom level.


Still not convinced that we live inside the Earth? Well look at this when it's perfectly level (as you can easily see by the fishhead camera not showing a curve you can see almost exactly 1 part Earth to 1 part Sky: Skip ahead to 1:50-1:60 to see this demonstrated)

#t=115" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=115

Concave: 1 part Sky 1 part Earth.
Flat: 2 parts Sky, 1 part Earth.
Convex: 3 parts Sky 1 part Earth.

Lovely. So do you expect to get this result regardless of where you point the camera?

And another thing: how can you expect that zooming in - which kind of spreads the light coming into the lens over a larger part of the film/matrix(say X/Y axes), giving you a better resolution at the cost of recording a smaller portion of the view in front of you at once - can in any way alter what data you receive about details related to the Z axis?

Quote from: Sculelos on August 23, 2014, 11:59:50 AM

Concave: 1 part Sky 1 part Earth.
Flat: 2 parts Sky, 1 part Earth.
Convex: 3 parts Sky 1 part Earth.

Lovely. So do you expect to get this result regardless of where you point the camera?

And another thing: how can you expect that zooming in - which kind of spreads the light coming into the lens over a larger part of the film/matrix(say X/Y axes), giving you a better resolution at the cost of recording a smaller portion of the view in front of you at once - can in any way alter what data you receive about details related to the Z axis?

The result will always match that if you point the camera level with the ground. Size of Earth actually doesn't matter as you can divide the surface of a ball indefinitely as you can also divide the surface of a flat plane or a concave surface indefinitely so geometry will always be preserved.

This is how Earth should look like from space if it were a ball: https://www.google.com/search?q=Mario+Galaxy&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS581US581&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=R-z4U9KrNMj5igKw44GwCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1366&bih=667#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ZVCWkTKC33ofOM%253A%3BCE_thYYP4WSDoM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.gamespot.com%252Fuploads%252Foriginal%252F1179%252F11799911%252F2379606-galaxylevelsmash.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.gamespot.com%252Farticles%252Fnew-smash-bros-gets-super-mario-galaxy-stage%252F1100-6416204%252F%3B864%3B486

This is how Earth should look like from space if it was concave: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0904/iss_sts119_big.jpg

This is how Earth should look like space if it were flat: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/01/2008_01_07_dojo_main_99.jpg

This is how we see Earth from altitude: http://images.essentialtravel.co.uk/et-magazine/q-and-a/view-from-plane.jpg

So as we can see if it were flat: 1 parts Earth to 2 parts Sky, Concave: 1 part Earth to 1 part Sky, Convex: 1 part Earth to 3 parts Sky. :Edit Fixed typo of 2 to 3 parts.

Quote from: Macpie on August 23, 2014, 12:29:19 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on August 23, 2014, 11:59:50 AM

Concave: 1 part Sky 1 part Earth.
Flat: 2 parts Sky, 1 part Earth.
Convex: 3 parts Sky 1 part Earth.

Lovely. So do you expect to get this result regardless of where you point the camera?

And another thing: how can you expect that zooming in - which kind of spreads the light coming into the lens over a larger part of the film/matrix(say X/Y axes), giving you a better resolution at the cost of recording a smaller portion of the view in front of you at once - can in any way alter what data you receive about details related to the Z axis?

The result will always match that if you point the camera level with the ground. Size of Earth actually doesn't matter as you can divide the surface of a ball indefinitely as you can also divide the surface of a flat plane or a concave surface indefinitely so geometry will always be preserved.

This is how Earth should look like from space if it were a ball: https://www.google.com/search?q=Mario+Galaxy&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS581US581&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=R-z4U9KrNMj5igKw44GwCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1366&bih=667#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ZVCWkTKC33ofOM%253A%3BCE_thYYP4WSDoM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.gamespot.com%252Fuploads%252Foriginal%252F1179%252F11799911%252F2379606-galaxylevelsmash.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.gamespot.com%252Farticles%252Fnew-smash-bros-gets-super-mario-galaxy-stage%252F1100-6416204%252F%3B864%3B486

This is how Earth should look like from space if it was concave: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0904/iss_sts119_big.jpg

This is how Earth should look like space if it were flat: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/01/2008_01_07_dojo_main_99.jpg

This is how we see Earth from altitude: http://images.essentialtravel.co.uk/et-magazine/q-and-a/view-from-plane.jpg

So as we can see if it were flat: 1 parts Earth to 2 parts Sky, Concave: 1 part Earth to 1 part Sky, Convex: 1 part Earth to 3 parts Sky. :Edit Fixed typo of 2 to 3 parts.

If you point the camera exactly where the ground meets the sky, you will always get the same result after zooming. I mean 50/50, if you omit the really tiny difference from the line curving slightly. It will still be centered. How can you expect anything else?

About your lovely pics - what difference do you see between SMG picture and the space station one, regarding the shape of the Earth? They both depict pretty much the same shape.

My point is that they are not pointing there cameras in especially the bobble-head video you can clearly see that the Earth never rotates out of the picture frame unless the camera is pointed exactly opposite from the Earth. This is because the cameras use wide angle lenses which capture 25% of your left and right viewing angles as well as 25% of your top and bottom viewing angles which total 75% of your total viewing angle in 360 degrees ( both Y and X axis) so most wide angle lenses are capturing 270 degrees of video and projecting them onto a 90 degree screen so you are seeing the World contorted at a 3:1 angle so obviously it's going to look like a ball visually, the real clue that it's not an actual sphere that we can fly above is that if you 360 degree rotations the Earth always stays in your picture frame if it was a sphere it would never occupy more then 1/3rd of your picture frame while level and when rotating it would rotate out of your picture frame and then back in but we never see the Earth disappear from the picture frame unless the camera is actually exactly opposite to it. Also if you really used fish-eye lens on a already globe shaped object Earth would look like this:



Look again and notice how far below and above you, you can actually see at ground level: #t=115" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=115

Increased my accuracy calculations some and this should be more like what you would see if Earth were a globe and you were 123 miles above it still completely level with the Earth but looking straight ahead (0 degrees spirit level):

Yes, simple geometry shows that the earth is round and we live on the outside. If we lived on the inside there would be no horizon. Simple geometry.

Having been a photographer all my life, I can say without fear of contradiction that Sculelos obviously knows absolutely nothing about either photography or optical theory.

End of story.

I think it should be more like the below picture comparing concave and convex viewpoints.

I think it should be more like the below picture comparing concave and convex viewpoints.

So you have to add an imaginary triangle of land for your idea to work. Nice.

These are the absolute worst explanations of "proof" that I have ever seen.  You might want to learn some photographic and lens theory before you try to use it as evidence.  And those little pictures that were made on the computer.  The ones that look like my 6 year old niece did.  They just show more ignorance to fact.  Not fact itself. 

These are the absolute worst explanations of "proof" that I have ever seen.  You might want to learn some photographic and lens theory before you try to use it as evidence.  And those little pictures that were made on the computer.  The ones that look like my 6 year old niece did.  They just show more ignorance to fact.  Not fact itself.

LOL... these kindergarten-type sketches are all the "proof" that Sculelos ever posts.  I dunno whether or not he's serious, or just trolling for the fun of it.