mythbusters faking a curved horizon

One of the mythbusters went on a U2 high altitude flight






They are using a fisheye lens, the higher the horizon is in the frame,the more curved it will appear







In this shot the plane was banking so the horizon is higher in the frame and therefore more curved
https://www.photigy.com/canon-8-15mm-f4-0l-fisheye-lens-first-impressions-you-cant-have-wider-that-this/



But as you can see the horizon behind him is perfectly flat at the same altitude

If that second curve is correct, then the whole globular Earth must be around 400km or so in diameter, lol

Not once do they mention that the image is totally distorted.....even though it's a science show!

The average person doesn't know what a fisheye lens is,or that they distort more around the edges of the image.

How DARE you question mythbusters. Next thing you know you'll be questioning whether the earth is round.

If that second curve is correct, then the whole globular Earth must be around 400km or so in diameter, lol

Wasn't the OP stating that the lens caused the curvature effect?

Also please show workings that allowed you to estimate the diameter of the earth.

Thanks.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2016, 05:49:49 PM

If that second curve is correct, then the whole globular Earth must be around 400km or so in diameter, lol

Wasn't the OP stating that the lens caused the curvature effect?

Also please show workings that allowed you to estimate the diameter of the earth.

Thanks.

You have not been here very long, but globularists present fish eye photos all the time, claiming that the curvature proves the shape of the Earth.  That is why it is funny.  Perhaps you should lurk moar? 

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2016, 06:11:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2016, 05:49:49 PM

If that second curve is correct, then the whole globular Earth must be around 400km or so in diameter, lol

Wasn't the OP stating that the lens caused the curvature effect?

Also please show workings that allowed you to estimate the diameter of the earth.

Thanks.

You have not been here very long, but globularists present fish eye photos all the time, claiming that the curvature proves the shape of the Earth.  That is why it is funny.  Perhaps you should lurk moar?

You don't remember me? I'm offended.

Remember we had that heated debate about equatorial mounted telescopes and celestial drift on the poles.

Remember how we thought we could use those obsevations to ascertain the approximate shape of the earth?

Pretty similar to what happened in the transit of Mercury thread if i may go so far ;-)

Are you admitting that you are an alt?  That is against the rules. 

No, this is my only account on this website.

Unless string theory is right ya know :-)

This has been covered many times. The curvature is a product of a normal lens.

This has been covered many times. The curvature is a product of a normal lens.

Really?  Perhaps you could provide a link or three to the proof of your your statement? 

That can't be true because in the third image the horizon is perfectly flat.

If you watch the video the horizon behind him is perfectly flat the whole video and the side cameras show a curved horizon even at a low altitude

Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2016, 06:47:23 PM

This has been covered many times. The curvature is a product of a normal lens.

Really?  Perhaps you could provide a link or three to the proof of your your statement?

I managed to capture a couple...





I promised these in an earlier thread.

Toodle pip ;-)

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2016, 06:59:53 PM

Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2016, 06:47:23 PM

This has been covered many times. The curvature is a product of a normal lens.

Really?  Perhaps you could provide a link or three to the proof of your your statement?

Quote from: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 01:26:12 PM

I managed to capture a couple...





I promised these in an earlier thread.

Toodle pip ;-)

Are you claiming that that curvature is the horizon of the Earth?  Are you a total idiot, or just drunk?  I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt. 

Sun looks pretty round to me, so does Mercury.

Amateur photo with stock standard camera lens.

It nearly looks like mercury is actually orbiting the sun, crazy right?

The FET would nearly fall apart if we could predict the movements velocity and locations of the planetary bodies in our solar system

Oh wait we can, nevermind.

Sun looks pretty round to me, so does Mercury.

Amateur photo with stock standard camera lens.

It nearly looks like mercury is actually orbiting the sun, crazy right?

Wow, what does any of your crazy thoughts have to do with the mythbusters or the curvature of the Earth?  Perhaps you should lay off the booze for a few hours so you might be able to make a coherent statement?  That would be great.  Thanks. 

The FET would nearly fall apart if we could predict the movements velocity and locations of the planetary bodies in our solar system

Oh wait we can, nevermind.

Go to bed, drunkard.  This is a scientific forum, not Facebook. 

I thought it was relevant to the thread.

It's just those photos put a huge amount of evidence towards our heliocentric solar system.

Being able to predict the position of any planet at any given time begs you to re think the earth supposed flat and central state.

Please Jroa, reconsider ;-)

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2016, 07:09:46 PM

The FET would nearly fall apart if we could predict the movements velocity and locations of the planetary bodies in our solar system

Oh wait we can, nevermind.

Go to bed, drunkard.  This is a scientific forum, not Facebook.

Theres nothing scientific about zetesticism. Please refrain from personal attacks on the debate forums. ;-)

In how many directions are you trying to derail this thread? 

In how many directions are you trying to derail this thread?

Six hundred and sixty six ;-)

Please, understand that derailing is against the rules.  Don't make me have to give you a warning. 

Quote from: sokarul on May 11, 2016, 06:47:23 PM

This has been covered many times. The curvature is a product of a normal lens.

Really?  Perhaps you could provide a link or three to the proof of your your statement?

I don't need to provide a link. It's been covered in many threads. The lens can make curvature seem more curved than it should be.

Please, understand that derailing is against the rules.  Don't make me have to give you a warning.

Thanks noted ;-)

I don't know why these types of arguments keep coming up as they have been addressed before.

Regardless whether the Earth is spherical or a disk, at a high enough altitude BOTH will appear as circles. Take a ball and a dish and stand 10 feet away. BOTH are circles.

What happens is when you start at the surface (of a sphere), depending on your height, you have a horizon that is one big circle around you. The higher you go the bigger the circle gets up to a point then gets smaller. It is always a circle.

The only thing changing is that the circle/horizon is getting lower (compared to horizontal) the higher you get. It is always a circle. I am not sure why this is a problem.

Please, understand that derailing is against the rules.  Don't make me have to give you a warning.

^Said the pot to the kettle.

Please, understand that derailing is against the rules.  Don't make me have to give you a warning.

Warns against derailing a thread, has only responded saying he's drunk.

The footage at 70,000 feet was taken when the plane was banking which made the horizon look more curved,this is deliberate distortion.
If there is a natural curve why not use regular lenses instead of a lens used for artistic purposes which has no use in science.
Other wide angle lenses could be used. Gopro cameras are convenient to use but the mythbusters are masters at making their own stuff,they could have made something with a non-distorting lens.