sun and eyes

  • 34 Replies
  • 4107 Views
sun and eyes
« on: December 17, 2015, 02:44:11 PM »
I have a question:  How far can the human eyes see?  How far can the camera see?  It seems that there are a lot of argument about the curvature of the earth. And NASA claim to have a picture of a spherical earth.  Well, NASA stated in fact that those photo are pieced together (composite photos put together)  because I think there is no camera or machine to take an entire photograph of the planet earth in one shot hence the series of images that NASA takes in space has to be pieced together.  The same I guess with photographs showing a plane, flat earth. You have to take several photos and piece them together.  I want to see the ends of the earth, though. 
My question:  1.  Has anyone measure the ends of the earth? example: East to west or north to south?  How many miles or kilometers is East to West or North to South.
2.  If the Bible is correct and the sun stood still in Joshua (Old Testament) , were there recorded disturbances on the earth, oceans, mountains etc? when the moon and sun stood still for a few hours?
3.  If  "the sun did not stand still in the Old Testament times" - then are we saying the Bible is lying?

It seems to me that there is more questions than answers, which is good as long as people do not get angry and hostile while trying to understand this new concept.
It is hard to change someones belief especially if it is held for a long time and established as truth and hard fact.

I have to reconcile Biblical truths and science. Or be contented that sometimes Bible and science are like east and west - the twain don't meet. 

I will be watching these conversations and see where we collectively go.  I am a member of the silent majority that somehow stumbled upon this interesting topic.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2015, 09:56:14 PM »
I have a question:  How far can the human eyes see?  How far can the camera see?  It seems that there are a lot of argument about the curvature of the earth.
Eye can see as far as the resolution of an object and the light coming from them are sufficient to be detected. You can see a lamp light  from 5km but you may not see a pen from 50m.

Camera can see further with greater resolution and good lense.

The curvature of the Earth is one of the most common topics. Even though it was already answered like million of times that the Earth is too big to notice the curvature with naked eyes.

And NASA claim to have a picture of a spherical earth.  Well, NASA stated in fact that those photo are pieced together (composite photos put together)
Photos took from a low orbit cannot show the Earth in a single frame. Hence they made a composite image. Same can follow for Flat Earth model.

 
because I think there is no camera or machine to take an entire photograph of the planet earth in one shot hence the series of images that NASA takes in space has to be pieced together. 
There is. Search for DSCOVR.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/

1.  Has anyone measure the ends of the earth? example: East to west or north to south?  How many miles or kilometers is East to West or North to South.
For the Globe Earth you take into account radiuses and double them. The numbers are known. For the Flat Earth model you cannot find a consistent answer.

2.  If the Bible is correct and the sun stood still in Joshua (Old Testament) , were there recorded disturbances on the earth, oceans, mountains etc? when the moon and sun stood still for a few hours?
3.  If  "the sun did not stand still in the Old Testament times" - then are we saying the Bible is lying?
Bibile has nothing to do with the real science.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2015, 10:01:34 PM »
I think unaided eye, from dark skies,  then M31 (the andromeda Galaxy) which is 2.5 million light years away.

I've seen M82 through my 8" scope, which I think is around 12 million light years away!

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2015, 10:06:28 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2015, 10:15:15 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Your post has nothing to do with the actual topic.

P.S. FE model is not even a math model. If you think the opposite, please provide the distance to the Sun and explain it (with the aid of math). See my signature. Globe model has a proper and well-founded math.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2015, 12:56:19 AM »
Photos took from a low orbit cannot show the Earth in a single frame. Hence they made a composite image. Same can follow for Flat Earth model.
What is the furthest distance that is regarded as low Earth orbit and also can't Earth's entire size be taken with a wide angled camera from low Earth orbit?

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2015, 03:46:18 AM »
What is the furthest distance that is regarded as low Earth orbit
I had no idea, so I googled. It is between 200 and 2000 km.

can't Earth's entire size be taken with a wide angled camera from low Earth orbit?
No.

From 200 km, with 151.72o wide view  (any greater will not provide more area) you can only see 2x14.14o large piece.

From 2000 km, with 99.26o wide view you can see 2x40.37o large piece.

Explaination - Seeing 2x Ao piece means that when you fix your position over the north pole, you would be able to see everything up to (90-A)o parallel. This is basically your angular radius of sight.

To see the entire size you would have to see 2x90o, which happens only when you are infinitely far (in theory...).

DSCOVR, placed in L1, 1,500,000 km away, can see ~99.5% of Earth's size.

Numbers are approximations, small errors are expected.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2015, 12:16:52 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Oh, it's so funny seeing your little statements pop up, with never a hint of evidence.  Keep it up!

*

JustThatOneGuy

  • 193
  • Expect to see activity bursts and stops.
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2015, 12:27:59 PM »
The flat Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a flat plane traveling through space. The flat Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Nah, I'm just here to correct your grammar. The Earth's still round, though.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2015, 12:28:27 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Please describe experiments we can carry now.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2015, 12:56:25 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Please describe experiments we can carry now.
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2015, 05:21:23 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Please describe experiments we can carry now.
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.
Since this Q&A I can't explain just how ridiculous your statement is, so I won't.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2015, 05:59:54 PM »
The ball Earth has nothing to do with the real science. All real science experiments have shown that the Earth is not a spinning ball traveling through space. The ball Earth theory is just a math model nothing more. It is nice and fun for some to fantasize about, it amounts to nothing real.
Please describe experiments we can carry now.
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.
Since this Q&A I can't explain just how ridiculous your statement is, so I won't.
I will make it a question then you can give  me an answer , instead of wimping out  .If you pull a string line between to fixed points will it convex?
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2015, 07:00:44 PM »
I'll take the bible question. The very act of the sun standing still is in it of itself a miracle. So if we live in a heliocentric solar system and the earth stopped rotating then by natural means yes we should have catastrophes recorded at that time. But since the sun standing still was itself a miracle then if the Bible is true (which I think it is) then God could've prevented all that just as easily as he stopped the sun.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2015, 03:38:40 PM »
I will make it a question then you can give  me an answer , instead of wimping out  .If you pull a string line between to fixed points will it convex?

1) If you pull a string line between two fixed points on a flat, cubic, square or globe earth it will sink toward the ground in the centre due to the effect of gravity, UA or denspressure (whatever that is) on its own mass.
2) There is no way a string could be pulled straight enough to discern any difference between a flat earth, concave earth or a globe earth.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2015, 01:40:25 AM »
I will make it a question then you can give  me an answer , instead of wimping out  .If you pull a string line between to fixed points will it convex?

1) If you pull a string line between two fixed points on a flat, cubic, square or globe earth it will sink toward the ground in the centre due to the effect of gravity, UA or denspressure (whatever that is) on its own mass.
2) There is no way a string could be pulled straight enough to discern any difference between a flat earth, concave earth or a globe earth.
I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2015, 03:34:55 AM »
I will make it a question then you can give  me an answer , instead of wimping out  .If you pull a string line between to fixed points will it convex?
No, I was not wimping out, but the post I prepared got lost where our cable connection dropped out.
Hope it's a case of better late than never!
1) If you pull a string line between two fixed points on a flat, cubic, square or globe earth it will sink toward the ground in the centre due to the effect of gravity, UA or denspressure (whatever that is) on its own mass.
2) There is no way a string could be pulled straight enough to discern any difference between a flat earth, concave earth or a globe earth.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2015, 12:56:20 PM »
How about you answer the questions I asked .

I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2015, 01:43:29 PM »
I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2015, 01:55:02 PM »
I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?
Just answer the question .Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2015, 02:10:38 PM »
I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?
Just answer the question .Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim
All about weight and tension. School physics, as you know.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2015, 06:49:09 PM »
[quoauthor=inquisitive link=topic=65164.msg1740652#msg1740652 date=1450649438]
I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?
Just answer the question .Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim
All about weight and tension. School physics, as you know.
[/quote]
You have still not answered the question.   please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim

 Cowards 
« Last Edit: December 20, 2015, 06:52:17 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2015, 07:10:46 PM »
[quoauthor=inquisitive link=topic=65164.msg1740652#msg1740652 date=1450649438]
I didnt  say we are using it to measure a curviture.  We were useing it to determine if  you could make it convex. I gather your answers was no.
Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass.
How does a string relate to the shape of the planet? How does the fact that you can't make the string convex mean that the surface of the planet can't be convex?
Just answer the question .Then please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim
All about weight and tension. School physics, as you know.
You have still not answered the question.   please explain the special properties of a string line . That is magically defying all this other matter that you claim is convexing with weightlessness  mass. Its your claim the earth is convexing not mine. Back up your claim
[/quote]

A string doesn't have special properties. It is no different from any other matter. I honestly don't understand your question. Are you trying to say that the surface of the planet is like a string? I really don't know what you're asking.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2015, 07:47:55 PM »
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2015, 03:02:36 AM »
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?
If you cant get a simple  stringline to convex  between two fixed points, it in fact concaves due to the weight of its mass  falling  to gravity .Then  how can you ever claim other matter is convexing.
Thats check mate game over , unless you can get the stringline to convex.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2015, 03:21:15 AM »
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?
If you cant get a simple  stringline to convex  between two fixed points, it in fact concaves due to the weight of its mass  falling  to gravity .Then  how can you ever claim other matter is convexing.
Thats check mate game over , unless you can get the stringline to convex.

Spin an uncooked pizza crust on your hand and try to get the dough to be perfectly flat. No matter how hard you try, you will never get the dough to be flat, it will always be a little bit convex. That's checkmate game over, unless you can get the pizza dough to be flat.

Do you see why this type of reasoning fails?
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2015, 04:00:08 AM »
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?
If you cant get a simple  stringline to convex  between two fixed points, it in fact concaves due to the weight of its mass  falling  to gravity .Then  how can you ever claim other matter is convexing.
Thats check mate game over , unless you can get the stringline to convex.
I finally found your original quote in "The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate" and answered it there.
In case anyone has not seen that,  I will repeat the answer.  Mind you I still think your question is ridiculous!

One of my pet hates in life was seting up  string lines , simply because no mater how much tension I put on it . Gravity would always  make it sag slightly in the middle . Now not once did it ever convex. So tell me, if a string line wont convex & it actually concave's due to its  weight & fall. Why on earth would you think the surface of the earth would act the opposite to everything else. ?
I finally found your string line "experiment"!

Your string line sags simply because it is only supported at the ends and gravity pulls the line down.  An extremely high tension is required get a very small sag - yes I know the problem, especially when a line level is hung in the middle.

But, would you expect bodies of water, like swimming pools and lakes, to be concave?  Small bodies of water look flat, but to me very large bodies like the ocean do indeed look "convex".

These and earth's surface are not concave because they are supported (more or less) uniformly all across their surface. 
There are examples of rock bridges, but these are rigid and are always too small to show curvature (or not) from the earth's shape.

Mind you, for the life of me I simply cannot imagine any right thinking person could possibly conceive of the "string line" convexing on any sort of earth.  If this is the level of debate we are going to get from FEers, the globe is quite safe.
I will give Charles Bloomington some credit, he is giving questions to answer, so many others just nitpick about spelling, grammar or the inability to post expertly.  Credit where credit is due!

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2015, 04:34:54 AM »
Take a stringline & two fixed points pull it tight & see if you can make the string line  convex.

Look, I am sorry, but neither I, nor anyone else has any idea what this "string line" is supposed to do!
Please tell us just why it should "convex" or not on any sort of earth?
How can we answer if we have no idea what you are talking about?
If you cant get a simple  stringline to convex  between two fixed points, it in fact concaves due to the weight of its mass  falling  to gravity .Then  how can you ever claim other matter is convexing.
Thats check mate game over , unless you can get the stringline to convex.

the string is being held up by the posts at the ends and is being pulled down by gravity in the middle. Of course it will bend down in the middle.

Now if you had posts holding the string along its entire length then it was show a 'Convex' shape.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2015, 11:49:48 AM »
I have a question:  How far can the human eyes see?
Andromeda I suppose.

Quote
  How far can the camera see?
Depends on capabilities of the lens.

Quote
  because I think there is no camera or machine to take an entire photograph of the planet earth in one shot
It would easily fit into frame as long as the camera is far enough away.


Re: sun and eyes
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2015, 12:01:14 PM »
]What is the furthest distance that is regarded as low Earth orbit and also can't Earth's entire size be taken with a wide angled camera from low Earth orbit?
The entire visible portion from low-Earth orbit?  Is that what you mean?