mythbusters faking a curved horizon

A sphere would drop away from the viewer and appear curved a lot earlier.

A flat plane disc extends hundreds of times more into the distance than part of a sphere.

A sphere would drop away from the viewer and appear curved a lot earlier.

A flat plane disc extends hundreds of times more into the distance than part of a sphere.

OK, so the view should extend all the way to the edge of the disk, which is the south pole ice wall. So I should be able to see it from this picture then.

Can you point out where it is?

A sphere would drop away from the viewer and appear curved a lot earlier.

A flat plane disc extends hundreds of times more into the distance than part of a sphere.

You titled this thread "mythbusters faking a curved horizon".
I might have missed something, but the only reference to a curve was "The edge of our planet has a definitive curve to it".
And I believe that is exactly what many flat earthers claim we should see!  Like a big plate.

I could find no reference to the goPro video showing a curved horizon.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 12, 2016, 12:01:27 AM

. . . if you are concerned that someone is an alt, you can check their router ip to find out more or less where they are posting from.

There is actually an AI (Alternate Identity) filter
that alerts mods when an alternate identity is created
and a log is kept, and automatically updated,
of all AI's ever created.

AI's are either allowed or not allowed.

What jroa claims is that the alt used a proxy to bypass the filter, and then kept using and switching proxies to keep a consistency with the supposed primary locations of his alternate accounts. So not only does he have to switch accounts, but he also has to switch proxies as well.

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

You do realize that where the horizon is in a frame affects the curvature you see. Most likely a "fish-eye"/ultra-wide lens exaggerates this even more:


Notice that the farther from the center of any photo (and video) you go, the more distorted the image becomes:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64007.msg1755686#msg1755686)

That's whatnot ve been saying the whole time.
Fisheye makes it even worse,

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

OK, so no ice wall in the picture. I guess there is something we can agree on 

I came across this by the way. I took another snapshot to get a better picture

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

PS
I'm not pointing out the wings, since the lines are radiating from the center of the video. Straight lines radiating from the center of a frame don't get curved from fish eye distortion.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

OK, so no ice wall in the picture. I guess there is something we can agree on 

I came across this by the way. I took another snapshot to get a better picture

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

PS
I'm not pointing out the wings, since the lines are radiating from the center of the video. Straight lines radiating from the center of a frame don't get curved from fish eye distortion.

I honestly don't know what happened there, because the lens definitely distorted the video. I'm not sure what is going on there...

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 10:17:43 AM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

OK, so no ice wall in the picture. I guess there is something we can agree on 

I came across this by the way. I took another snapshot to get a better picture

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

PS
I'm not pointing out the wings, since the lines are radiating from the center of the video. Straight lines radiating from the center of a frame don't get curved from fish eye distortion.

I honestly don't know what happened there, because the lens definitely distorted the video. I'm not sure what is going on there...

I'm also convinced that there is some distortion there. The video is taken using a wide lens, so there is off course some degree of fish eye distortion. It is, I believe, pretty significant that the horizon looks curvier, but the horizon itself is already curvy to begin with. If the curve was all caused by the fish eye distortion alone, then it should be really bad that the airplane fuselage (or window frame maybe?) should be significantly distorted too. Since it is below the center of the video, the curve should be like the one drawn in green line. But it looks pretty straight, it is in fact curved a little bit but opposite of the green line.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 14, 2016, 10:24:53 AM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 10:17:43 AM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

OK, so no ice wall in the picture. I guess there is something we can agree on 

I came across this by the way. I took another snapshot to get a better picture

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

PS
I'm not pointing out the wings, since the lines are radiating from the center of the video. Straight lines radiating from the center of a frame don't get curved from fish eye distortion.

I honestly don't know what happened there, because the lens definitely distorted the video. I'm not sure what is going on there...

I'm also convinced that there is some distortion there. The video is taken using a wide lens, so there is off course some degree of fish eye distortion. It is, I believe, pretty significant that the horizon looks curvier, but the horizon itself is already curvy to begin with. If the curve was all caused by the fish eye distortion alone, then it should be really bad that the airplane fuselage (or window frame maybe?) should be significantly distorted too. Since it is below the center of the video, the curve should be like the one drawn in green line. But it looks pretty straight, it is in fact curved a little bit but opposite of the green line.

Maybe it was already curved the other side? It could be some sort of round object... I don't know. Anyway, at 70,000 feet there shouldn't be much curvature at all. The Concorde flew at 18,000 meters high, and you could allegedly see some curvature, but not very easily.

If you look at the image of Felix baumgartener at 100,000 feet it shows less curvature,so it has to be the lens doing it.





The horizon is at the right position in each image to cause that level of distortion, with a fisheye lens.

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

If I understand correctly, what hello_there is getting at here isn't that there's no fish-eye, but rather that there's no way the level of fish-eye distortion alone could not make the earth appear that curvy.

If you look at the image of Felix baumgartener at 100,000 feet it shows less curvature,so it has to be the lens doing it.

The horizon is at the right position in each image to cause that level of distortion, with a fisheye lens.

First off, there's not all that much less curvature in the image of Baumgartner.
Second, the horizon is not in the right position to cause that level of distortion if it were flat, the curvature is off-center. If it were flat it would be centered, because it's only the fish-eye effect making it curved, and the distortion of a fish-eye lens is, well, always centered in the lens.
Third, are you sure that's a fish-eye lens? I'd personally suspect that if they were trying to take a picture of a human being from that close, they wouldn't want fish-eye distortion and would use a different lens.

Edit: If it weren't a fish-eye lens in the Baumgartner picture, that would also explain why the curvature looks about the same at the higher altitude.

source:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/lens-curved-horizon.html

Many more curved horizon pictures there too!

Clearly a different camera from the obviously different resolution, contrast, and color absorption,


Not sure what you're even trying to prove here.

Many more curved horizon pictures there too!

Yes. There are. And they're not all due to debilitating fish-eye distortion.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

I can't even answer rabinoz because he is questioning whether or not the image shows a curve when it obviously does.

OK, so no ice wall in the picture. I guess there is something we can agree on 

I came across this by the way. I took another snapshot to get a better picture

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

PS
I'm not pointing out the wings, since the lines are radiating from the center of the video. Straight lines radiating from the center of a frame don't get curved from fish eye distortion.

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me. 

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 07:50:46 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

About basic stuff like the shape of the earth, how night and day happen, how eclipses happen, how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round, yes they do. About revolutionary, cutting edge, and hypothetical stuff, there are disagreements. That's why they do research. After all, they are scientist, that's what they do.

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 07:50:46 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

Difference is when scientists are proven wrong they change their theory and find a new model to better explain observations and results.

source:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/lens-curved-horizon.html

Many more curved horizon pictures there too!

There sure are, there is one picture that I quite like


The thing about fish eye distortion is that not only does it distort the horizon, but it also distorts objects in the photo too. The "unpatrolled beach" sign is noticeably distorted, but I don't see the person or the space capsule being distorted that badly.

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 07:51:54 PM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 07:50:46 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

About basic stuff like the shape of the earth, how night and day happen, how eclipses happen, how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round, yes they do. About revolutionary, cutting edge, and hypothetical stuff, there are disagreements. That's why they do research. After all, they are scientist, that's what they do.

Your scientists most certainly can not agree on how gravity works.  They have dozens of modern theories to explain how it works.  It could be Gravitrons.  It could be bendy space time.  It could be the electromagnetic force.  It could be a force from another dimension.  It could be strings.  They have nothing but guesses, you can hardly get two in a room or dozens to agree with each other, yet we are held to a higher standard. 

Gopro sponsored Felix, they used the footage in a super bowl commercial.

Arguing that it's not a fisheye lens is just spamming and trying to pick a fight for the sake of it.

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 08:07:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 07:51:54 PM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 07:50:46 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

About basic stuff like the shape of the earth, how night and day happen, how eclipses happen, how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round, yes they do. About revolutionary, cutting edge, and hypothetical stuff, there are disagreements. That's why they do research. After all, they are scientist, that's what they do.

Your scientists most certainly can not agree on how gravity works.  They have dozens of modern theories to explain how it works.  It could be Gravitrons.  It could be bendy space time.  It could be the electromagnetic force.  It could be a force from another dimension.  It could be strings.  They have nothing but guesses, you can hardly get two in a room or dozens to agree with each other, yet we are held to a higher standard. 

Sorry for misleading you, that's not quite what I meant actually. About why there is gravity, there is still some debate about it. But about how it affects us and the celestial bodies (which is what is relevant to the argument of earth being round), they do agree.

And don't say "oh, now you are dodging and changing your statement". I actually mentioned it

how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 08:32:24 PM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 08:07:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 07:51:54 PM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 07:50:46 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

About basic stuff like the shape of the earth, how night and day happen, how eclipses happen, how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round, yes they do. About revolutionary, cutting edge, and hypothetical stuff, there are disagreements. That's why they do research. After all, they are scientist, that's what they do.

Your scientists most certainly can not agree on how gravity works.  They have dozens of modern theories to explain how it works.  It could be Gravitrons.  It could be bendy space time.  It could be the electromagnetic force.  It could be a force from another dimension.  It could be strings.  They have nothing but guesses, you can hardly get two in a room or dozens to agree with each other, yet we are held to a higher standard. 

Sorry for misleading you, that's not quite what I meant actually. About why there is gravity, there is still some debate about it. But about how it affects us and the celestial bodies (which is what is relevant to the argument of earth being round), they do agree.

And don't say "oh, now you are dodging and changing your statement". I actually mentioned it

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 08:07:28 PM

how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round

They can only agree that something will fall if you drop it.  They still can't even agree why their gravity formulas do not work on something the size of a galaxy or even the universe.  The point is that you hold us to different standards and claim that it must be BS if two of us can not agree on a particular subject, yet your scientists disagree with each other all the time, which most people will tell you is actually a good thing.  If all scientists agreed with each other, we would be at a standstill as far as science goes.  Now, tell us again why it is wrong for two FE'ers to have differing opinions? 

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

Oh god, I lol'd. Nice sense of humor there.

Indeed OP, I do have to agree with you, the image does look distorted and there is something fishy (fish eye lense) going on in the images you provided. Nice thread.

I however, being a avid fan of the mythbusters am a bit disappointed in them, especially since I started my quest for knowledge. I always viewed them as a beacon of reason and logic, and now I view them more as "meh, cool show." Thanks for sharing.

Thanks nice to see some positivity,

The white line could possibly be a number of things, if the footage was taken when the north pole is snowed under and the camera is pointing north it could be that.

It could be the ice BEHIND the wall causing the white line, the wall itself isn't very high, but the large amount of ice behind the wall could make a line like that.

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 09:18:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 08:32:24 PM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 08:07:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 07:51:54 PM

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 07:50:46 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 14, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

Sort of looks like a white wall off in the distance to me.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on May 14, 2016, 07:30:37 AM

When things are further away they get smaller, the ice wall is far away it cannot be seen for this reason.

So the ice wall can or cannot be seen? You guys should agree on things first before arguing with the round earthers.

You mean like how all of your scientists agree about everything? 

About basic stuff like the shape of the earth, how night and day happen, how eclipses happen, how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round, yes they do. About revolutionary, cutting edge, and hypothetical stuff, there are disagreements. That's why they do research. After all, they are scientist, that's what they do.

Your scientists most certainly can not agree on how gravity works.  They have dozens of modern theories to explain how it works.  It could be Gravitrons.  It could be bendy space time.  It could be the electromagnetic force.  It could be a force from another dimension.  It could be strings.  They have nothing but guesses, you can hardly get two in a room or dozens to agree with each other, yet we are held to a higher standard. 

Sorry for misleading you, that's not quite what I meant actually. About why there is gravity, there is still some debate about it. But about how it affects us and the celestial bodies (which is what is relevant to the argument of earth being round), they do agree.

And don't say "oh, now you are dodging and changing your statement". I actually mentioned it

Quote from: hello_there on May 14, 2016, 08:07:28 PM

how gravity works, pretty much all about the earth being round

They can only agree that something will fall if you drop it.  They still can't even agree why their gravity formulas do not work on something the size of a galaxy or even the universe.  The point is that you hold us to different standards and claim that it must be BS if two of us can not agree on a particular subject, yet your scientists disagree with each other all the time, which most people will tell you is actually a good thing.  If all scientists agreed with each other, we would be at a standstill as far as science goes.  Now, tell us again why it is wrong for two FE'ers to have differing opinions?

About the gravity formula doesn't work for the size of galaxy, I'm sure that you are referring to the fact that the physical bodies in the galaxy are orbiting the center too quickly for gravity to keep it together. Well there is dark matter, and it is not made up just to fill in the blanks. It can actually be detected by its gravitational lensing. As for the universe thing, I think you are referring to the dark energy. I don't really understand it, if someone does feel free to jump in. But I'm sure that there is a strong proof which makes it widely acceptable. But the disagreement does not compromise the argument of earth being round.

Your flat earth gravity? Some say that it's due to the mass of the earth plane
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66723.msg1780048#msg1780048
some say that it's due to universal acceleration
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Gravity#Universal_Acceleration
If you got flat earth scientists, then there will certainly be a disagreement there. And the disagreement is way worse than the "round-earth" scientists, the difference is compromising the very layout of your flat earth.

They can only agree that something will fall if you drop it.

Are you living in the 18th century? They agree on bunch of stuff, way more that just that. First off, it causes big celestial bodies to have a round shape, then it is possible to orbit around a bigger celestial body. Then there are gravitational lensing and time dilatation due to gravity too.

By the way, this is getting out of topic, and I think it's your job to prevent it. Just saying you know, not that it annoys me or anything. But if you don't mind then I'll be happy to go on.

Dark matter is not observed through gravitational lensing.

Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

In fact, the only way it can even be infered to exist is because galaxies to not fling themselves apart.

In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.

Is dark matter the only theory about what keeps galaxies together?  Of course not.  There are dozens of competing theories.  The same thing goes for dark energy.  It is one of many theories about the universe expanding.