How high do I have to go to see the curve of Earth?

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 05:11:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 03:59:29 PM

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 02:41:40 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 02:32:21 PM

The only post akin to that was you saying the horizon appears flat at ground level.

False.

Then what else did you say on the topic?

Do you just refuse to actually read the threads you participate in?

Here is every reply you have done:

>I would suggest lurking moar.
1>I would suggest lurking in a thread related to the topic of lunar eclipses, not a thread about the altitude required to perceive earth's alleged curvature. That is kind of how lurking works.
>So you refuse to do any research, but feel confident about "speaking out against" a subject you are clearly lacking in. That about sums up the RE approach to most things.
>Evidence for what, specifically? You do know there are many different topics that can be discussed, right? The whole point of the forum is to start discussions about specific topics. It is also good form to actually stay on that topic.
>Hello there, random noob. I assure you the topic of lunar eclipses has come up before, as a simple search will yield. I know round earth logicians are known for their low effort posts, but you really are setting a new record.
>Cool story, bro.
>What? No. I mean a thread. I would suggest that you try using the search function, especially if you are struggling as much as you seem to be.
>Who ever said it was?
>You are definitely lacking in knowledge about FE claims, as well as simple logic.
>I am not sure what you are projecting here, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
>No, I don't know. Anything else you want to throw against the wall?
>How have I ignored what you said? I am literally replying to things you said. Is there something about simple conversation that is too difficult for you?
>You obviously have some unresolved issues with flat earth proponents you have encountered. However, that is no reason to project your issues onto me.
>If you are asking if it seems you haven't researched FET, then yes.
>What error? You mean literally quoting you? I am sorry if you disagree with your own words, but I can't help you with that. I am not sure where all this hostility is coming from.
>It is subjective using the round earth model. If you had spent five minutes researching this ahead of time, you would already know that people claim different things.
>Irrelevant.
>Typical round earth response. Always wanting someone else to do your work for you. I would suggest you learn how to perform basic research. If that is too difficult for you, maybe try the search function on this forum. It really isn't that hard.
>Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
>How is that relevant to this thread? Maybe you should go back and read the topic. If you need any help with it, just ask.
>What threads? Why are you round earthers so entitled? You do know that no one here actually owes you anything, right?
>Pot, meet kettle. You are actually the arrogant one, as is evidenced by your posting behavior thus far. You can't seem to stay on topic. All you are doing is demanding answers from unnamed people about things that aren't being discussed in this thread. Do you really not see how ridiculous that is?
>There is a lot of assumption in this assertion of yours. Maybe try asking questions next time so you don't come off as looking so foolish.
>Your behavior thus far has shown an unwillingness to perform research. I am sorry if that bothers you, but it is simply the truth.
>Feel free to apply those skills anytime, then, because you haven't thus far. You entire diatribe up to this point is more suited for the Angry Ranting forum.
>I would suggest doing some actual research, then.
2>Are you suggesting space(time) doesn't curve (bend)?
>I would suggest looking up the definition of the word, then coming back. Hopefully you will see that you actually are, and then maybe you will stop.
>Where? In this thread? Do you know what the topic is?
>What claims?
>I am literally quoting you, using the quote feature. Are you suggesting that the words you are typing are  not what you are saying? You assertions are getting more an more ridiculous, quite frankly.
>I "acted?" I don't know how you inferred that, but that is a you problem. If you have confusion about something someone says, you should just try asking them and stop making so many assumptions. However, that seems to be a common trait amongst you roundies, so I don't anticipate it to stop anytime soon.
>Have we already covered the parable of the pot and the kettle? This is more of your projection shining through.
>You say that is what you want. Your posting behavior doesn't reflect that. You should really work on that because it makes you seem rather disingenuous.
>Where did that happen?
>You are literally just making things up at this point.
>No, I quote what they say. I am sorry if you have issues with your own words. You should think them through better before you post next time. At this point, you are bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
>You keep saying that you have researched it, yet nothing so far is indicative of that. You entire post thus far can be summed up as some perceived victimization on your part where you think you are being misrepresented by the actual words you said. Until you can work on that, I don't think productive debate will ever happen. You need to be honest with yourself, first.
>I suppose it is a good thing that didn't happen, then.
>See my point above about this victim narrative you are trying to frame. No one is lying about you friend, just quoting your own words. I would also suggest that you look up what slander means, because it doesn't seem you know how to use the term.
>I haven't seen that claim. But, if that is the case, they are wrong (assuming we are talking about someone viewing the horizon from the ground). It seems there is one thing we can agree on up to this point. Maybe more of this actual kind of discussion can take place.
>You have already derailed the thread. What does it matter at this point? Your entire rant here had one point that actually related to the topic.
>Not what it looks like from over here. But, we have already established your loose approach with words, so I don't know what you actually mean.
>Cool, maybe apply some of that knowledge to the topic at hand.
>They are explained. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but that is no one's problem but your own. Although, I don't frequent this site anymore, so I may be behind on the currently accepted model here. I spend most of my time at another FE community.
>False, and not even tangentially related to the topic. You do know that if there is a particular thing you want to discuss, you can make your own thread about it, right?
>You managed to deflect and project at the same time. Well done. It is explained in the FE model. I would suggest doing some research instead of trying to get others to do your homework for you.
>Take care!
>False.
>Except you are the one derailing the thread. You literally have no self-awareness.
>False. You are very entitled. Like many words you have used up to this point, I doubt you know what it means, as evidenced by your obvious misunderstanding here.
>What does this have to with the topic? Why do you struggle so hard with such a simple concept as not derailing a thread. Also, you can demand all you want. It is obvious you are not equipped to discuss FET, and your childish rants are an example of that. No one owes you anything, but you can "demand" all you want.
>Actually, you are. You just lack the self-awareness to realize it.
>Literally irrelevant.
>Aww, now you are getting passive aggressive. It is okay, this is typical behavior when someone literally has no argument.
>False
>I would suggest going back and reading the thread to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.
>I am glad you are finally admitting to derailing, however you have already gone way off the rails.
>If you have, you clearly haven't learned anything. I would suggest working on your research abilities.
>Irrelevant. Good job backtracking, though.
>Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. Your own words prove that you do not. I am sure if you keep working hard on your 'research' that you can figure it out eventually.
>So, not at all related to this topic. Gotcha.
>Yet you can't provide an answer. I suppose that makes you below even a complete moron based on your own words.
>It isn't the quote I am objecting to. It is your responses, which don't always match what I say.
For example, when I say I'm not going to lurk, you pretend I said I'm not going to research.
>Except, I am responding to what you are saying. I really don't want to have to explain such basic concepts to you. If you don't like your own words, I would suggest you refrain from posting. I am sorry you have such a tough time with that, friend.
>Up to this point, you have not. So, at this point I feel comfortable in explicitly saying you are not going to research. You would rather play the victim of some perceived narrative.
>It is a good thing I am literally responding to what you are literally saying, then.
>False.
>You very obviously do not understand the term slander. I would suggest you refrain from using it. But, if you want to continue to be ignorant, I can't stop you.
>What? I can't help that you aren't willing to do the research. In the amount of time you have been complaining, you could have learned so much.
>I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and maybe doing some research.
>You are, actually. However, based on your inability to understand simple concept thus far, I don't expect you to admit or understand it.
>False.
>Also false. You aren't doing very good here.
>More deflection. Good attempt, though.
>False. Your own words are what I quoted. Based on that, if there is a lie, the only one lying is you.
>What have you pointed out in the thread doesn't work in the FE model. Do you understand what the topic is?
>I don't need to make any assertions because you haven't provided any evidence.
>Explanation for what? You really don't understand how a forum works, do you? You have already derailed the thread, nothing you say will make a difference at this point. You clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.
>False. But this is an excellent 5th grade retort on your part.
>False. For someone who claims to not lie, you sure are doing plenty of it.
>False.
>Also false. They are literally your words. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.
>I would have preferred if you use the correct term, yes.
>Irrelevant.
>Who in this thread is claiming the earth is flat? You seem to claim it is round. I would suggest yo provide evidence to support your claims. This is the same thing I would expect of anyone making a claim.
>I promise no one wants you to do any work beyond providing evidence for your claims. You should try that sometime.
>Nope, I mean in actuality. Somewhere that you are far from at this point.
>What does this have to do with the topic?
>Literally, objectively false.
>Literally false. You very clearly don't know what the terms mean, so you should probably stop using them until you do.
>Sorry, friend, I would never want you doing my work. Your efforts thus far are incredibly pathetic, and I would certainly never want to be associated with anything you have done.
>The reality is that you are just another nobody who has shown up here. You demand from others something that you refuse to provide yourself. You are literally a generic round earth stereotype member on this forum. You haven't contributed anything and no one will remember you when you are gone, except maybe your perpetual victim mentality. You are well on your way to becoming a meme, and that is about the best you can do. I do wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully you aren't as much of a failure in other areas as you are here. Take care!
>Objectively false.


I can only find 2 or three times where you actually added to the discussion.

You're a moran.

Jane isn't Junker.

You're a moran.

Jane isn't Junker.

Junkyman/Jane has no interest in debate or otherwise, he/she is a spoiler and defector. As FE belief is devoid of any rationality the only approaches left are to, throw up smokescreens, discredit science and its agencies or derail discussions with meaningless comments or challenges. Whenever proof is offered, they claim hoax or foul or point to you being under the influence of some unspecified mind control.
They themselves never offer proof as it is not available to them, what instead they offer is some link to FE mumbojumbo......like the atmoplane for example! Which we all know is a figment of FE imagination.

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 05:11:08 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 03:59:29 PM

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 02:41:40 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 25, 2017, 02:32:21 PM

The only post akin to that was you saying the horizon appears flat at ground level.

False.

Then what else did you say on the topic?

Do you just refuse to actually read the threads you participate in?

Here is every reply you have done:

>I would suggest lurking moar.
1>I would suggest lurking in a thread related to the topic of lunar eclipses, not a thread about the altitude required to perceive earth's alleged curvature. That is kind of how lurking works.
>So you refuse to do any research, but feel confident about "speaking out against" a subject you are clearly lacking in. That about sums up the RE approach to most things.
>Evidence for what, specifically? You do know there are many different topics that can be discussed, right? The whole point of the forum is to start discussions about specific topics. It is also good form to actually stay on that topic.
>Hello there, random noob. I assure you the topic of lunar eclipses has come up before, as a simple search will yield. I know round earth logicians are known for their low effort posts, but you really are setting a new record.
>Cool story, bro.
>What? No. I mean a thread. I would suggest that you try using the search function, especially if you are struggling as much as you seem to be.
>Who ever said it was?
>You are definitely lacking in knowledge about FE claims, as well as simple logic.
>I am not sure what you are projecting here, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
>No, I don't know. Anything else you want to throw against the wall?
>How have I ignored what you said? I am literally replying to things you said. Is there something about simple conversation that is too difficult for you?
>You obviously have some unresolved issues with flat earth proponents you have encountered. However, that is no reason to project your issues onto me.
>If you are asking if it seems you haven't researched FET, then yes.
>What error? You mean literally quoting you? I am sorry if you disagree with your own words, but I can't help you with that. I am not sure where all this hostility is coming from.
>It is subjective using the round earth model. If you had spent five minutes researching this ahead of time, you would already know that people claim different things.
>Irrelevant.
>Typical round earth response. Always wanting someone else to do your work for you. I would suggest you learn how to perform basic research. If that is too difficult for you, maybe try the search function on this forum. It really isn't that hard.
>Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
>How is that relevant to this thread? Maybe you should go back and read the topic. If you need any help with it, just ask.
>What threads? Why are you round earthers so entitled? You do know that no one here actually owes you anything, right?
>Pot, meet kettle. You are actually the arrogant one, as is evidenced by your posting behavior thus far. You can't seem to stay on topic. All you are doing is demanding answers from unnamed people about things that aren't being discussed in this thread. Do you really not see how ridiculous that is?
>There is a lot of assumption in this assertion of yours. Maybe try asking questions next time so you don't come off as looking so foolish.
>Your behavior thus far has shown an unwillingness to perform research. I am sorry if that bothers you, but it is simply the truth.
>Feel free to apply those skills anytime, then, because you haven't thus far. You entire diatribe up to this point is more suited for the Angry Ranting forum.
>I would suggest doing some actual research, then.
2>Are you suggesting space(time) doesn't curve (bend)?
>I would suggest looking up the definition of the word, then coming back. Hopefully you will see that you actually are, and then maybe you will stop.
>Where? In this thread? Do you know what the topic is?
>What claims?
>I am literally quoting you, using the quote feature. Are you suggesting that the words you are typing are  not what you are saying? You assertions are getting more an more ridiculous, quite frankly.
>I "acted?" I don't know how you inferred that, but that is a you problem. If you have confusion about something someone says, you should just try asking them and stop making so many assumptions. However, that seems to be a common trait amongst you roundies, so I don't anticipate it to stop anytime soon.
>Have we already covered the parable of the pot and the kettle? This is more of your projection shining through.
>You say that is what you want. Your posting behavior doesn't reflect that. You should really work on that because it makes you seem rather disingenuous.
>Where did that happen?
>You are literally just making things up at this point.
>No, I quote what they say. I am sorry if you have issues with your own words. You should think them through better before you post next time. At this point, you are bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
>You keep saying that you have researched it, yet nothing so far is indicative of that. You entire post thus far can be summed up as some perceived victimization on your part where you think you are being misrepresented by the actual words you said. Until you can work on that, I don't think productive debate will ever happen. You need to be honest with yourself, first.
>I suppose it is a good thing that didn't happen, then.
>See my point above about this victim narrative you are trying to frame. No one is lying about you friend, just quoting your own words. I would also suggest that you look up what slander means, because it doesn't seem you know how to use the term.
>I haven't seen that claim. But, if that is the case, they are wrong (assuming we are talking about someone viewing the horizon from the ground). It seems there is one thing we can agree on up to this point. Maybe more of this actual kind of discussion can take place.
>You have already derailed the thread. What does it matter at this point? Your entire rant here had one point that actually related to the topic.
>Not what it looks like from over here. But, we have already established your loose approach with words, so I don't know what you actually mean.
>Cool, maybe apply some of that knowledge to the topic at hand.
>They are explained. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but that is no one's problem but your own. Although, I don't frequent this site anymore, so I may be behind on the currently accepted model here. I spend most of my time at another FE community.
>False, and not even tangentially related to the topic. You do know that if there is a particular thing you want to discuss, you can make your own thread about it, right?
>You managed to deflect and project at the same time. Well done. It is explained in the FE model. I would suggest doing some research instead of trying to get others to do your homework for you.
>Take care!
>False.
>Except you are the one derailing the thread. You literally have no self-awareness.
>False. You are very entitled. Like many words you have used up to this point, I doubt you know what it means, as evidenced by your obvious misunderstanding here.
>What does this have to with the topic? Why do you struggle so hard with such a simple concept as not derailing a thread. Also, you can demand all you want. It is obvious you are not equipped to discuss FET, and your childish rants are an example of that. No one owes you anything, but you can "demand" all you want.
>Actually, you are. You just lack the self-awareness to realize it.
>Literally irrelevant.
>Aww, now you are getting passive aggressive. It is okay, this is typical behavior when someone literally has no argument.
>False
>I would suggest going back and reading the thread to clear up your obvious misunderstanding.
>I am glad you are finally admitting to derailing, however you have already gone way off the rails.
>If you have, you clearly haven't learned anything. I would suggest working on your research abilities.
>Irrelevant. Good job backtracking, though.
>Just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. Your own words prove that you do not. I am sure if you keep working hard on your 'research' that you can figure it out eventually.
>So, not at all related to this topic. Gotcha.
>Yet you can't provide an answer. I suppose that makes you below even a complete moron based on your own words.
>It isn't the quote I am objecting to. It is your responses, which don't always match what I say.
For example, when I say I'm not going to lurk, you pretend I said I'm not going to research.
>Except, I am responding to what you are saying. I really don't want to have to explain such basic concepts to you. If you don't like your own words, I would suggest you refrain from posting. I am sorry you have such a tough time with that, friend.
>Up to this point, you have not. So, at this point I feel comfortable in explicitly saying you are not going to research. You would rather play the victim of some perceived narrative.
>It is a good thing I am literally responding to what you are literally saying, then.
>False.
>You very obviously do not understand the term slander. I would suggest you refrain from using it. But, if you want to continue to be ignorant, I can't stop you.
>What? I can't help that you aren't willing to do the research. In the amount of time you have been complaining, you could have learned so much.
>I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and maybe doing some research.
>You are, actually. However, based on your inability to understand simple concept thus far, I don't expect you to admit or understand it.
>False.
>Also false. You aren't doing very good here.
>More deflection. Good attempt, though.
>False. Your own words are what I quoted. Based on that, if there is a lie, the only one lying is you.
>What have you pointed out in the thread doesn't work in the FE model. Do you understand what the topic is?
>I don't need to make any assertions because you haven't provided any evidence.
>Explanation for what? You really don't understand how a forum works, do you? You have already derailed the thread, nothing you say will make a difference at this point. You clearly have no interest in discussing the topic.
>False. But this is an excellent 5th grade retort on your part.
>False. For someone who claims to not lie, you sure are doing plenty of it.
>False.
>Also false. They are literally your words. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.
>I would have preferred if you use the correct term, yes.
>Irrelevant.
>Who in this thread is claiming the earth is flat? You seem to claim it is round. I would suggest yo provide evidence to support your claims. This is the same thing I would expect of anyone making a claim.
>I promise no one wants you to do any work beyond providing evidence for your claims. You should try that sometime.
>Nope, I mean in actuality. Somewhere that you are far from at this point.
>What does this have to do with the topic?
>Literally, objectively false.
>Literally false. You very clearly don't know what the terms mean, so you should probably stop using them until you do.
>Sorry, friend, I would never want you doing my work. Your efforts thus far are incredibly pathetic, and I would certainly never want to be associated with anything you have done.
>The reality is that you are just another nobody who has shown up here. You demand from others something that you refuse to provide yourself. You are literally a generic round earth stereotype member on this forum. You haven't contributed anything and no one will remember you when you are gone, except maybe your perpetual victim mentality. You are well on your way to becoming a meme, and that is about the best you can do. I do wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully you aren't as much of a failure in other areas as you are here. Take care!
>Objectively false.

Quote from: Lonegranger on April 30, 2017, 02:02:56 AM

Junkyman/Jane has no interest in debate or otherwise, he/she is a spoiler and defector. As FE belief is devoid of any rationality the only approaches left are to, throw up smokescreens, discredit science and its agencies or derail discussions with meaningless comments or challenges. Whenever proof is offered, they claim hoax or foul or point to you being under the influence of some unspecified mind control.
They themselves never offer proof as it is not available to them, what instead they offer is some link to FE mumbojumbo......like the atmoplane for example! Which we all know is a figment of FE imagination.

Says the person who doesn't understand field of view, lol...

Here you go. Now there are some big words being used, but lots of diagrams so you should get the drift.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 01:22:12 AM

Here you go. Now there are some big words being used, but lots of diagrams so you should get the drift.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Curiously enough, I read that exact paper years ago. Given that you likely just found it, hopefully it taught you a little bit about FOV. You can go ahead and admit your error anytime now...

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 26, 2017, 03:34:40 PM

Hahahahaha Lonegranger is such a liar!

12 kilometers up to see the curve of earth!?!?

What bull!

Thats why people in Concorde aircraft flying at 60,000 ft kinda sorta maybe thought they saw a lil curve...?

Earth is flat.

Remember the commandments.....the earth is a sphere. I think it's you bedtime...off you go.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

Quote from: Lonegranger on April 26, 2017, 03:37:41 PM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 26, 2017, 03:34:40 PM

Hahahahaha Lonegranger is such a liar!

12 kilometers up to see the curve of earth!?!?

What bull!

Thats why people in Concorde aircraft flying at 60,000 ft kinda sorta maybe thought they saw a lil curve...?

Earth is flat.

Remember the commandments.....the earth is a sphere. I think it's you bedtime...off you go.

Wow! What a response.
Is that how grown ups act when theyre proben wrong?

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

It would depend on the FOV as to whether or not I would agree with it (assuming a round earth). You know, FOV, a concept you don't understand and continue to ignore.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

It would depend on the FOV as to whether or not I would agree with it (assuming a round earth). You know, FOV, a concept you don't understand and continue to ignore.

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

It would depend on the FOV as to whether or not I would agree with it (assuming a round earth). You know, FOV, a concept you don't understand and continue to ignore.

It depends on reality, that's all, though I suppose you have to have an understanding as to what that is. You either agree with 12 km or you don't. If not why not? Why not answer the original question rather than being continually evasive, you either know the answer or you don't.....and from where I'm standing it looks like your confused and clueless.

The Himawari 8 satellite sees a pretty neat curve at 35,000km up.

It depends on reality, that's all, though I suppose you have to have an understanding as to what that is. You either agree with 12 km or you don't. If not why not?

Quote from: Shifter on May 02, 2017, 12:35:04 AM

The Himawari 8 satellite sees a pretty neat curve at 35,000km up.

The link above is of a private weather baloon launch tp 35 km. It uses 120 degree wide angle lense, and when that distortion is accounted for, there is no curve at all.

Care to explain?
...

please provide the exact calculation that has been done with the distorted video to prove what you claim.
provide all the necessary data that is used for this calculation that come to the conclusion that the horizon is not curved.

Quote from: Shifter on May 02, 2017, 12:35:04 AM

The Himawari 8 satellite sees a pretty neat curve at 35,000km up.

...

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:37:14 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

It would depend on the FOV as to whether or not I would agree with it (assuming a round earth). You know, FOV, a concept you don't understand and continue to ignore.

It depends on reality, that's all, though I suppose you have to have an understanding as to what that is. You either agree with 12 km or you don't. If not why not? Why not answer the original question rather than being continually evasive, you either know the answer or you don't.....and from where I'm standing it looks like your confused and clueless.

I have to assume you are either trolling, or being intentionally obtuse. Nobody can actually be that dense...

Quote from: Junker on May 02, 2017, 07:31:18 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:37:14 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

It would depend on the FOV as to whether or not I would agree with it (assuming a round earth). You know, FOV, a concept you don't understand and continue to ignore.

It depends on reality, that's all, though I suppose you have to have an understanding as to what that is. You either agree with 12 km or you don't. If not why not? Why not answer the original question rather than being continually evasive, you either know the answer or you don't.....and from where I'm standing it looks like your confused and clueless.

I have to assume you are either trolling, or being intentionally obtuse. Nobody can actually be that dense...

Yup I was correct....confused....and talking about density...they can go look in the mirror for the answer, though take a deep breath first.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 02, 2017, 10:54:41 AM

Quote from: Junker on May 02, 2017, 07:31:18 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:37:14 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: Junker on May 01, 2017, 03:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 01, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

If you have read the paper, and I nderstood it of course, it agrees with my initial contribution and answer to the original question that was posted...12 km.

I would suggest you go back and read it again.

And exactly what point are you trying to make? Do you not agree with the 12km figure I gave? If not why?

It would depend on the FOV as to whether or not I would agree with it (assuming a round earth). You know, FOV, a concept you don't understand and continue to ignore.

It depends on reality, that's all, though I suppose you have to have an understanding as to what that is. You either agree with 12 km or you don't. If not why not? Why not answer the original question rather than being continually evasive, you either know the answer or you don't.....and from where I'm standing it looks like your confused and clueless.

I have to assume you are either trolling, or being intentionally obtuse. Nobody can actually be that dense...

Yup I was correct....confused....and talking about density...they can go look in the mirror for the answer, though take a deep breath first.

Nice deflection. Good to see you still don't understand FOV. It really isn't that tough of a concept. I'm sure if you study really hard for a few weeks you will come to understand it. Then, just maybe, you will see how nonsensical you are being. If you find yourself struggling after the first week, feel free to ask for help. Take care, friend!

The link above is of a private weather baloon launch tp 35 km. It uses 120 degree wide angle lense, and when that distortion is accounted for, there is no curve at all.

Care to explain?

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on May 02, 2017, 08:41:44 AM

The link above is of a private weather baloon launch tp 35 km. It uses 120 degree wide angle lense, and when that distortion is accounted for, there is no curve at all.

Care to explain?

Well, for starters, that is only 35 km, not 35 000 km.

To do it honestly, you nee to know where the centre of the lens is and a bunch of details about the lens.

Quote from: Shifter on May 02, 2017, 12:35:04 AM

The Himawari 8 satellite sees a pretty neat curve at 35,000km up.

The link above is of a private weather baloon launch tp 35 km. It uses 120 degree wide angle lense, and when that distortion is accounted for, there is no curve at all.

Care to explain?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2017, 02:10:58 PM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on May 02, 2017, 08:41:44 AM

The link above is of a private weather baloon launch tp 35 km. It uses 120 degree wide angle lense, and when that distortion is accounted for, there is no curve at all.

Care to explain?

Well, for starters, that is only 35 km, not 35 000 km.

Oops my mistake, typo!

I am just wondering why shifter seems to think that a satellite orbits that height and takes pictures of the "pretty neat" curve.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2017, 02:10:58 PM

To do it honestly, you nee to know where the centre of the lens is and a bunch of details about the lens.

=
Blah blah blah stall stall stall shill shill shill

Blah blah blah stall stall stall shill shill shill