Earth Will Appear Round When You Buy a Weather Balloon and Cheap Camera

How do you people explain the fact that you can buy a digital camera, launch it to the edge of space and get a picture of a rounded Earth?

It is very cheap to do nowadays on your own, does this mean all digital cameras are hacked by flying Gypsies as soon as they get high enough so that we're all tricked that the earth looks round while it's actually flat?

How can the Earth be flat if we can all go up their with a Balloon and a cheap camera to see that it's round?

When was this "edge of space" experiment performed?

Why send a camera when you can send yourself?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2806972/Google-Executive-breaks-Felix-Baumgartner-s-highest-parachute-jump-record-secret-135-000-foot-leap-edge-space.html

I'll pitch in for a space-suit

When was this "edge of space" experiment performed?

It's impossible to count how many times it was performed because 14 year olds are doing it for fun:
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/22/14-year-old-gets-photos-from-space/

When was this "edge of space" experiment performed?

Are you having some difficulties using Google jroa?  It took me all of 20 seconds to find a dozen references to space edge experiments.

Why do you expect us to do your homework for you?

(THIS site may be of some help with your searches in future.)

Quote from: jroa on October 25, 2014, 12:38:35 PM

When was this "edge of space" experiment performed?

Are you having some difficulties using Google jroa?  It took me all of 20 seconds to find a dozen references to space edge experiments.

Why do you expect us to do your homework for you?

(THIS site may be of some help with your searches in future.)

My point is that just because the media says something went to the "edge of space", that does not mean it actually did.  The accepted distance to the edge of space is more than 300,000 feet.  Which balloon went that high with a camera, much less a human, on board? 

My point is that just because the media says something went to the "edge of space", that does not mean it actually did.  The accepted distance to the edge of space is more than 300,000 feet.  Which balloon went that high with a camera, much less a human, on board?

Ah, so this is going to be another semantic debate.  Good to know.

The problem is that it appears flat:



Here is a good video showing the flatness at 100,000+ feet!

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Wow, unwatchably annoying and retarted.

Quote from: ausGeoff on October 26, 2014, 04:34:24 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 25, 2014, 12:38:35 PM

When was this "edge of space" experiment performed?

Are you having some difficulties using Google jroa?  It took me all of 20 seconds to find a dozen references to space edge experiments.

Why do you expect us to do your homework for you?

(THIS site may be of some help with your searches in future.)

My point is that just because the media says something went to the "edge of space", that does not mean it actually did.  The accepted distance to the edge of space is more than 300,000 feet.  Which balloon went that high with a camera, much less a human, on board?

For people who hate what's generally accepted, the flat earthers love the consensus on the edge of space. Heaven forbid it should be a gradual thinning of the atmosphere that would make the edge seem anywhere from 100,000 ft to 300,000 ft.

Heaven forbid all edges are gradual changes and we just see them from a perspective that make them seem like a sharp edge and if we were actually looking at Earth from a distance the 100k-300k ft would actually look fine just like an edge.

My point is that just because the media says something went to the "edge of space", that does not mean it actually did.  The accepted distance to the edge of space is more than 300,000 feet.  Which balloon went that high with a camera, much less a human, on board?
 

The term "edge of space" is a layman's term, and is often used incorrectly as though it's defining some actual change point—rather than an arbitrary one used for convenience.  This is from Wiki (the real one).....




Some people (including the FAI) in some of their publications) also use the expression "edge of space" to refer to a region below the conventional 100km boundary to space—the Kármán line—which is often meant to include substantially lower regions as well. Thus, certain balloon or airplane flights might be described as "reaching the edge of space".  In such statements, "reaching the edge of space" merely refers to going higher than average aeronautical vehicles commonly would.

You shouldn't place so much emphasis on semantics jroa.  In fact, if you'd taken the time to read the news report, you would've known that it (the 41km altitude) wasn't referred to as the "edge of space", but as a  "near-space" dive.  Technically speaking, two totally different things.

Quote from: jroa on October 27, 2014, 06:35:38 AM

My point is that just because the media says something went to the "edge of space", that does not mean it actually did.  The accepted distance to the edge of space is more than 300,000 feet.  Which balloon went that high with a camera, much less a human, on board?
 

The term "edge of space" is a layman's term, and is often used incorrectly as though it's defining some actual change point—rather than an arbitrary one used for convenience.  This is from Wiki (the real one).....

Some people (including the FAI) in some of their publications) also use the expression "edge of space" to refer to a region below the conventional 100km boundary to space—the Kármán line—which is often meant to include substantially lower regions as well. Thus, certain balloon or airplane flights might be described as "reaching the edge of space".  In such statements, "reaching the edge of space" merely refers to going higher than average aeronautical vehicles commonly would.

You shouldn't place so much emphasis on semantics jroa.  In fact, if you'd taken the time to read the news report, you would've known that it (the 41km altitude) wasn't referred to as the "edge of space", but as a  "near-space" dive.  Technically speaking, two totally different things.

There are several websites on the Internet explaining the use of b]semantics[/b]. This seems to be one of jroa's favorite tactics. Pity.

You shouldn't place so much emphasis on semantics jroa.  In fact, if you'd taken the time to read the news report, you would've known that it (the 41km altitude) wasn't referred to as the "edge of space", but as a  "near-space" dive.  Technically speaking, two totally different things.

lol, you complain to me about me arguing semantics, and in the same paragraph, you argue semantics.  Do you not see that? 

lol, you complain to me about me arguing semantics, and in the same paragraph, you argue semantics.  Do you not see that?

No.  You use semantics repeatedly to avoid answering questions directly.  I use semantics to occasionally clarify some scientific terminology (that you've used incorrectly).  To paraphrase Samuel Johnson:  "Semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

And this response of yours (above) is typical of that sort of obfuscation on your part.  No comment at all about the topic of discussion LOL.

I really can't believe how indoctrinated many of you people are. The atmosphere just blends into space, does it? We gradually enter a vacuum??? If that is the case then surely a gradual vacuum could be created here on earth.

Which of you is up to the challenge?

I really can't believe how indoctrinated many of you people are. The atmosphere just blends into space, does it? We gradually enter a vacuum??? If that is the case then surely a gradual vacuum could be created here on earth.

This illustrates two basic scientific principles you obviously don't understand...

Gravitational forces.  And vacuums.

The earth's gravity weakens as one moves away from the planet.  And there exists something known as a partial vacuum.

Quote from: legion on October 28, 2014, 02:27:17 PM

I really can't believe how indoctrinated many of you people are. The atmosphere just blends into space, does it? We gradually enter a vacuum??? If that is the case then surely a gradual vacuum could be created here on earth.

This illustrates two basic scientific principles you obviously don't understand...

Gravitational forces.  And vacuums.

The earth's gravity weakens as one moves away from the planet.  And there exists something known as a partial vacuum.

And the proof for this nonsense is...?

I really can't believe how indoctrinated many of you people are. The atmosphere just blends into space, does it? We gradually enter a vacuum??? If that is the case then surely a gradual vacuum could be created here on earth.

Which of you is up to the challenge?

Playing with semantics? There's a gradual change of pressure, well, anywhere. If you want the word "vacuum" in there, try your vacuum cleaner. You know, normal pressure elsewhere in your room, gradually transitioning into the lower pressure area partial vacuum by the vacuum cleaner's nozzle.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that air pressure does not decrease as altitude increases? Surely?

Quote from: ausGeoff on October 28, 2014, 02:40:32 PM

This illustrates two basic scientific principles you obviously don't understand...

Gravitational forces.  And vacuums.

The earth's gravity weakens as one moves away from the planet.  And there exists something known as a partial vacuum.

And the proof for this nonsense is...?

Are you—seriously—admitting you don't understand the principles of gravitational theory, and partial vacuums—both first theorised around 400 years ago?  Or are you simply parroting the scientific ignorance of your flat earth peers?  Do you really want me to "prove" that gravity and vacuums exist, or is it just your little joke?
 

Quote from: legion on October 28, 2014, 02:44:41 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on October 28, 2014, 02:40:32 PM

This illustrates two basic scientific principles you obviously don't understand...

Gravitational forces.  And vacuums.

The earth's gravity weakens as one moves away from the planet.  And there exists something known as a partial vacuum.

And the proof for this nonsense is...?

Are you—seriously—admitting you don't understand the principles of gravitational theory, and partial vacuums—both first theorised around 400 years ago?  Or are you simply parroting the scientific ignorance of your flat earth peers?  Do you really want me to "prove" that gravity and vacuums exist, or is it just your little joke?

Omg a post with no bolded words. What does it mean? The end is nigh, surely!

Quote from: ausGeoff on October 28, 2014, 04:40:34 PM

Quote from: legion on October 28, 2014, 02:44:41 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on October 28, 2014, 02:40:32 PM

This illustrates two basic scientific principles you obviously don't understand...

Gravitational forces.  And vacuums.

The earth's gravity weakens as one moves away from the planet.  And there exists something known as a partial vacuum.

And the proof for this nonsense is...?

Are you—seriously—admitting you don't understand the principles of gravitational theory, and partial vacuums—both first theorised around 400 years ago?  Or are you simply parroting the scientific ignorance of your flat earth peers?  Do you really want me to "prove" that gravity and vacuums exist, or is it just your little joke?

Omg a post with no bolded words. What does it mean?

It means that you just made a low content post, which is generally frowned upon in the "serious" discussion forums.

I really can't believe how indoctrinated many of you people are. The atmosphere just blends into space, does it? We gradually enter a vacuum??? If that is the case then surely a gradual vacuum could be created here on earth.

Which of you is up to the challenge?

How did you think we thought it worked? Were you under the assumption that it just suddenly becomes a vacuum? You might notice that on a mountain there is less air than at sea level. Please make note of that.

The air gets thinner as you gain altitude, until at some point it is so thin as to be non-existent. 

I'm absolutely baffled as to why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

The problem is that it appears flat:



Here is a good video showing the flatness at 100,000+ feet!

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

It must be hoax, they are using a lens that makes it appear flat.

The air gets thinner as you gain altitude, until at some point it is so thin as to be non-existent. 

I'm absolutely baffled as to why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Unfortunately, the basic scientific fact that the density of the earth's atmosphere decreases with altitude is one of those things that the flat earthers just can't seem to comprehend.  And is also the reason that someone like sceptimatic introduced his imaginary "denpressure" quantity.  Whenever the flat earthers can't understand simple high-school science, they resort to making things up in order to "explain" what they reckon is "really" happening.

Thus we have wide-angle lenses allegedly causing the earth's sphericity from space, and the disappearing ships illusion caused by "bendy" light LOL.

I note that legion has again conveniently avoided addressing yet another legitimate issue...

On the question of the earth's atmosphere tending to form a (partial) vacuum at higher altitudes, I asked him:

Are you—seriously—admitting you don't understand the principles of gravitational theory, and partial vacuums—both first theorised around 400 years ago?  Or are you simply parroting the scientific ignorance of your flat earth peers?  Do you really want me to "prove" that gravity and vacuums exist, or is it just your little joke?

So legion... have you done your homework?  Does rarified air exist?  Is "space" a vacuum—partial or perfect?  Or do you still claim that it's all "nonsense" as you did earlier?