Is it time to reflect?

That episode was so ridiculous. But so cool!

Freeze lightning!

Quote from: Shifter on July 11, 2021, 11:03:33 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 11, 2021, 10:51:18 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 11, 2021, 09:52:14 AM

Quote from: JJA on July 11, 2021, 09:40:16 AM

So are you now actually admitting those 'Earth from Space' Blu-Ray's are real satellite footage from orbit and not CGI then? Progress... I'm impressed.

I never said the photos were false to begin with. That idea is just an imagined narrative in your head and then going for it despite what you are told. Classic troll

Ok lets clear this up then, since you avoided directly answering the question I'll ask you explicitly.

1. Do you accept that the images in the Blu-Ray "Earth From Space" that are claimed to be taken from satellites in space, are indeed, taken from satellites in space?

Oh. I forgot, you're an Ameritard and need things spelled out very p-r-e-c-i-s-e-l-y

Ok. The blu ray of Earth from Space (which I own by the way - NOT the DVD ) are beautiful photos captured by satellites above the Earth

Good to know. It's kind of hard to keep track of who believes what around here. I need to take notes.

Sorry about calling your Blu-Ray a DVD. I'm out of practice talking about that old physical tech. I don't even own a single Blu-Ray, and the last DVD I bought was Stargate Season 1 only so I could get it signed by the cast.

I have over 300 4K titles in my collection including all of David Attenboroughs documentaries (that guy is a legend). I also have over 300 Asian movies in 4K, blu ray and ugh, DVDs. Sadly some awesome movies they made only had a DVD release or had such a limited run in blu rays (only a few hundred to share for the world) I can't find them

I paid over $300 American bucks for one super rare limited Korean blu ray title I could have picked up on DVD for $10. After seeing the movie (The Chaser), I had to agree - was totally worth it

THAT is how much I loathe DVDs lol

I just listened to a podcast about the first man in space Yuiri Gagarin, it’s an interesting listen and quite a story about a very remarkable man.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v24g
That was a long time ago back in 1961 and since then many nations have joined in the space race such as India and China both sending and ‘landing’ craft on the moon though India’s craft more crashed than landed! China has been the more successful just recently landing a rover on Mars to Join the USA. Japan has taken a different route landing a craft on a comet and retrieving samples.
While all that is exciting the main space related activity has been the launching of satellites, with over 6500 currently in orbit with just over 3500 being in active use and scores of nations being involved.

Where does that leave the flat earth believer? It’s a serious question as their belief hangs on the conspiracy. Take that away and everything flat earth evaporates.
You can argue about, maps, horizons, flight times and any number of other topics, but at the end of the day all flat earth belief stands on a foundation of conspiracy in regard to space.
With Space X Starlight train of satellites clearly visible in the night sky along with a host of others that need more careful observations, the evidence is there for all to see.
If we approach it from the other side and look at evidence for the conspiracy there is none that would tie in China, Japan, India, the European Union, Russia and the USA , never mind the nations on the fringes.
In the UK space is big business with Satellite manufacturing and testing worth many billions of  dollars and employing thousands of people.
While flat earthers can rage against NASA and point out the alleged ‘NAZI’ connection it looks rather weak when the global picture is taken into account.
I understand how some can’t quite grasp the concept of a big ball of rock and metal spinning while orbiting both the sun and the galactic centre but the evidence is there for all to see.
Had this argument been happening 200 years ago flat earth believers would have had a case, a weak one, but a case none the less. In 2021 however it beggars belief how people can still cling to a belief that has nothing going for it.
The question is do flat earth believers need to reconsider their beliefs in the face of the cold hard facts of reality?
I know many don’t like this killjoy approach as you would rather be having some argument about some obscure and rather meaningless topic such as the O2 supply on a 1970s NASA lunar mission, which is rather pointless as all the data about such missions is freely available unlike details of the conspiracy that Flat Earthers cling on to.
As it says, is it time to reflect ?
And will Bullwinkle’s post be a one word negative response?

I don't know much about space. But what I have witnessed is the curvature not being visiblle as a drop in altitude (maybe wrong word) over great distances and what is visible is closer to flat than the globe.

So, you don't understand the concept of the size of the Earth being so very much larger than you are, thus the degree of curvature that you would see at ground level from such a microscopic small point of view in relation to the Earth is not something your human eye can resolve. 
Your incredulity means conspiracy is what you are saying.  Great, you are just another run of the mill FE conspiracy nut.

Your incredulity means conspiracy is what you are saying.  Great, you are just another run of the mill FE conspiracy nut.

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 13, 2021, 06:42:39 AM

Your incredulity means conspiracy is what you are saying.  Great, you are just another run of the mill FE conspiracy nut.

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

It does when you deny literally every other piece of evidence, including plenty you can observe on your own. It also requires a deliberate ignorance of scale and geometry.

You don't happily jump off bridges because you don't have any personal experience of dying from large heights.  Cherry-picking what you chose to believe and disregarding is the hallmark of a "conspiracy nut". Someone telling you drinking bleach is bad is good enough to accept, but testimony from an astronaut and pictures from space are all fake and lies, that's the conspiracy logic.

If everyone only relied on their own personal experience and couldn't learn from others, we would still be banging stones together in caves.

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 13, 2021, 06:42:39 AM

Your incredulity means conspiracy is what you are saying.  Great, you are just another run of the mill FE conspiracy nut.

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

If you reject anything you do not understand outright with the excuse of "they are lying to you" when you can't even explain why.  Thus requiring a vast conspiracy for "reasons".  Then yes you are a conspiracy nut. 
Tell you what, explain the conspiracy motivations beyond just " the government lies" and explain the mechanisms to support the magic that has to happen for a sun to set on a flat earth.  I mean explain the mechanism too, why the light bends in such a way and how, as in what causes it.  Then explain the conspiracy, who is involved, how does it remain, beyond "everyone is a sheep". 
Go on I'll wait.  I'll bet you almost anything you will flounder around and not actually explain one single thing.  If you do, it will only be whatever previously debunked nonsense you found on youtube. 

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 13, 2021, 06:42:39 AM

Your incredulity means conspiracy is what you are saying.  Great, you are just another run of the mill FE conspiracy nut.

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

It really depends on what exactly your determinations are and the basis on which they were made.

What are yours?

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

It does when you are saying everyone else, including those who have spent quite a lot of time and effort either determining or using this information going directly against your "determination", which then also requires you to ignore loads of evidence which clearly shows you are wrong, such as photos from space, which are not all composites, with some at least being alleged as single images (or multiple single colour images combined into a single multicolour image in a similar manner to what a digital camera will do).

The only way you could argue that it doesn't make you a conspiracy nut is if you were isolated from the rest of the world and didn't have access to that knowledge.

But I'm pretty sure everyone on this board knows about photos from space, which clearly show Earth as a round object, like a ball; to someone not critically analysing the photos, they would assume Earth is a perfect sphere, as it appears round from every direction and the difference from a sphere is not noticeable by the naked eye. While a critical analysis with actually measuring the size shows it is more an oblate spheroid, and the uncertainty due to the size of a pixel allows it to not be perfect.
And likewise, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board knows about GPS, which is based upon satellites orbiting a round Earth, and using math based upon a RE to determine your position.
And likewise, I'm pretty sure everyone on this boards knows about the various claims of objects in space, like the ISS with people on it and the trip to the moon and probes sent to other planets.

So if you are aware of that and still claim Earth is flat, you are appealing to a massive conspiracy.
The only way out is to claim extreme wilful ignorance, where you are choosing to be ignorant of all the evidence available which shows Earth is round.

Otherwise, accepting the existence of all that evidence to avoid claims of a conspiracy or wilful ignorance, the best you can do is say you don't know the shape of Earth.

Quote from: jack44556677 on July 13, 2021, 09:04:33 AM

No, relying on your own personal experience to make determinations does not make one a "conspiracy nut".

It does when you are saying everyone else, including those who have spent quite a lot of time and effort either determining or using this information going directly against your "determination", which then also requires you to ignore loads of evidence which clearly shows you are wrong, such as photos from space, which are not all composites, with some at least being alleged as single images (or multiple single colour images combined into a single multicolour image in a similar manner to what a digital camera will do).

The only way you could argue that it doesn't make you a conspiracy nut is if you were isolated from the rest of the world and didn't have access to that knowledge.

But I'm pretty sure everyone on this board knows about photos from space, which clearly show Earth as a round object, like a ball; to someone not critically analysing the photos, they would assume Earth is a perfect sphere, as it appears round from every direction and the difference from a sphere is not noticeable by the naked eye. While a critical analysis with actually measuring the size shows it is more an oblate spheroid, and the uncertainty due to the size of a pixel allows it to not be perfect.
And likewise, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board knows about GPS, which is based upon satellites orbiting a round Earth, and using math based upon a RE to determine your position.
And likewise, I'm pretty sure everyone on this boards knows about the various claims of objects in space, like the ISS with people on it and the trip to the moon and probes sent to other planets.

So if you are aware of that and still claim Earth is flat, you are appealing to a massive conspiracy.
The only way out is to claim extreme wilful ignorance, where you are choosing to be ignorant of all the evidence available which shows Earth is round.

Otherwise, accepting the existence of all that evidence to avoid claims of a conspiracy or wilful ignorance, the best you can do is say you don't know the shape of Earth.

Hey I agree with most of that, apart from the photography content which is inaccurate.

I would say a 121 mega pixel image of the earth is well capable of resolving the exact shape of the earth.

To save anyone working it out it equates to about 1Km for each pixel give or take.

I would say a 121 mega pixel image of the earth is well capable of resolving the exact shape of the earth.

I still cant resolve what shape the Earth could be based from this 120 Gigapixel photo
https://www.earthcam.net/projects/empirestatebuilding/gigapixelpanorama/2021/

I would say a 121 mega pixel image of the earth is well capable of resolving the exact shape of the earth.

And I would say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Assuming you get a square, a 121 mega pixel image is 11 000 pixels wide and 11 000 pixels high.
As a comparison, Earth has a radius of roughly 6371 km. That gives it a diameter of 12742 km.
This should already ring alarm bells. The diameter in km is larger than the width in pixels.
Each pixel would represent ~1.16 km.

That means you wont be able to resolve any feature less than 1 km in size.

Plenty of rivers, hills, mountains and so on, will not appear in such an image as more than a blurry part of a pixel.
So no, you cannot use that to get the exact shape of Earth.
Care to try again?

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 03:51:49 AM

I would say a 121 mega pixel image of the earth is well capable of resolving the exact shape of the earth.

I still cant resolve what shape the Earth could be based from this 120 Gigapixel photo
https://www.earthcam.net/projects/empirestatebuilding/gigapixelpanorama/2021/

Possibly new glasses are required.

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

Why dont we just check in on the Himawari 8 satellite?

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

Actually, there are times when wide angle and fisheye lenses don't distort the image.

One such example is when taking pictures of something circular, centered in the lens.  Like a giant ball. 

Taking a picture of a circle with a wide angle lens, provided you use the correct angle will result in, a circle.

The wide angle lens in the ISS shot isn't making a square Earth look round.

True

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens was on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

Actually, there are times when wide angle and fisheye lenses don't distort the image.

One such example is when taking pictures of something circular, centered in the lens.  Like a giant ball. 

Taking a picture of a circle with a wide angle lens, provided you use the correct angle will result in, a circle.

The wide angle lens in the ISS shot isn't making a square Earth look round.

You are correct to a point. Wide angle lenses come with the inherent ability to make near objects appear larger than far away objects in the frame. Taking a picture of the earth from orbit with even a 14mm lens the distortion as you say would be minimal as the nearest part of the earth, relatively speaking, is not that much closer than the part that is farthest away. There of course will be distortion but it will be minimal. because of the subject and the subject distance.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:33:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

The camera was on a satellite in space, not on the ground. I though you would have realised that. But then again slow witted people need more explaining.

THE  CAMERA  WAS  ALREADY  IN  SPACE WHICH IS A LONG LONG WAY AWAY. OK, GOT THAT?

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:33:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

The camera was on a satellite in space, not on the ground. I though you would have realised that. But then again slow witted people need more explaining.

THE  CAMERA  WAS  ALREADY  IN  SPACE WHICH IS A LONG LONG WAY AWAY. OK, GOT THAT?

We were talking about the 108 Gigapixel photo taken from the ground (not very distant) vs one taken from space (very distant). Imagine calling someone slow witted and patting yourself on the back for it only to realise the slow witted one was yourself lol

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:45:45 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:33:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

The camera was on a satellite in space, not on the ground. I though you would have realised that. But then again slow witted people need more explaining.

THE  CAMERA  WAS  ALREADY  IN  SPACE WHICH IS A LONG LONG WAY AWAY. OK, GOT THAT?

We were talking about the 108 Gigapixel photo taken from the ground (not very distant) vs one taken from space (very distant). Imagine calling someone slow witted and patting yourself on the back for it only to realise the slow witted one was yourself lol

Keep up.
I was talking about the one the Russians took from SPACE that far away place, high high high up in the sky. Have you had a memory lapse? The highest resolution image to date.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:45:45 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:33:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

The camera was on a satellite in space, not on the ground. I though you would have realised that. But then again slow witted people need more explaining.

THE  CAMERA  WAS  ALREADY  IN  SPACE WHICH IS A LONG LONG WAY AWAY. OK, GOT THAT?

We were talking about the 108 Gigapixel photo taken from the ground (not very distant) vs one taken from space (very distant). Imagine calling someone slow witted and patting yourself on the back for it only to realise the slow witted one was yourself lol

Keep up.
I was talking about the one the Russians took from SPACE that far away place, high high high up in the sky. Have you had a memory lapse? The highest resolution image to date.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

The one to keep up is you. Given you're a little slow, here is the relevant conversation trail

I still cant resolve what shape the Earth could be based from this 120 Gigapixel photo
https://www.earthcam.net/projects/empirestatebuilding/gigapixelpanorama/2021/


Possibly new glasses are required.

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens was on the camera that took the high res shot?
I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

It's pretty obvious to anyone, if you want to get a good picture of something which takes ~40,000km to walk around, taking a photo from near the ground, regardless of how many megapixels it is, is not going to give you a good view compared with taking a picture from very high up (like a satellite). However you said distance is not a factor Yeah right

Keep up

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 03:51:49 AM

I would say a 121 mega pixel image of the earth is well capable of resolving the exact shape of the earth.

And I would say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Assuming you get a square, a 121 mega pixel image is 11 000 pixels wide and 11 000 pixels high.
As a comparison, Earth has a radius of roughly 6371 km. That gives it a diameter of 12742 km.
This should already ring alarm bells. The diameter in km is larger than the width in pixels.
Each pixel would represent ~1.16 km.

That means you wont be able to resolve any feature less than 1 km in size.

Plenty of rivers, hills, mountains and so on, will not appear in such an image as more than a blurry part of a pixel.
So no, you cannot use that to get the exact shape of Earth.
Care to try again?

Earth's equatorial diameter is 7,926 miles
Earths  polar diameter is 7,900 miles
difference of 26 miles or 42 Kilometres OR  41.842944  for those pedantic folk.

at 1.16......I trust you! I don't think its a lie!! it gives a difference of 36 pixels in the equatorial dimension to that of the polar. Take the image into photoshop and the difference will be obvious if pasted into a a square document sized for the image.

NB
All the information regarding the dimensions of the globe were supplied by experts. I did not in fact take those measurements myself.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:54:01 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:45:45 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:33:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

The camera was on a satellite in space, not on the ground. I though you would have realised that. But then again slow witted people need more explaining.

THE  CAMERA  WAS  ALREADY  IN  SPACE WHICH IS A LONG LONG WAY AWAY. OK, GOT THAT?

We were talking about the 108 Gigapixel photo taken from the ground (not very distant) vs one taken from space (very distant). Imagine calling someone slow witted and patting yourself on the back for it only to realise the slow witted one was yourself lol

Keep up.
I was talking about the one the Russians took from SPACE that far away place, high high high up in the sky. Have you had a memory lapse? The highest resolution image to date.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

The one to keep up is you. Given you're a little slow, here is the relevant conversation trail

Quote

I still cant resolve what shape the Earth could be based from this 120 Gigapixel photo
https://www.earthcam.net/projects/empirestatebuilding/gigapixelpanorama/2021/


Possibly new glasses are required.

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens was on the camera that took the high res shot?
I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

It's pretty obvious to anyone, if you want to get a good picture of something which takes ~40,000km to walk around, taking a photo from near the ground, regardless of how many megapixels it is, is not going to give you a good view compared with taking a picture from very high up (like a satellite). However you said distance is not a factor Yeah right

Keep up

What are you on about? a picture of the earth from the ground!!!!! I was referring to the image taken by the Russians from the high high space place. I haven't  the slightest clue what you are waffling about nor am I interested!

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 11:05:18 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:54:01 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:45:45 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 27, 2021, 10:36:09 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 27, 2021, 10:33:22 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens on the camera that took the high res shot?

I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

The camera was on a satellite in space, not on the ground. I though you would have realised that. But then again slow witted people need more explaining.

THE  CAMERA  WAS  ALREADY  IN  SPACE WHICH IS A LONG LONG WAY AWAY. OK, GOT THAT?

We were talking about the 108 Gigapixel photo taken from the ground (not very distant) vs one taken from space (very distant). Imagine calling someone slow witted and patting yourself on the back for it only to realise the slow witted one was yourself lol

Keep up.
I was talking about the one the Russians took from SPACE that far away place, high high high up in the sky. Have you had a memory lapse? The highest resolution image to date.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

The one to keep up is you. Given you're a little slow, here is the relevant conversation trail

Quote

I still cant resolve what shape the Earth could be based from this 120 Gigapixel photo
https://www.earthcam.net/projects/empirestatebuilding/gigapixelpanorama/2021/


Possibly new glasses are required.

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit

What do you mean by a 'standard lens'? Which lenses are not standard? Have you any idea what the lens was on the camera that took the high res shot?
I don't think distance is a factor, why do you think it is?

If the object is to see the 'exact shape of the Earth' as you put it, then yeah, taking the picture from an extremely high altitude works better than at ground level 

Time to reflect on your idiocy. I think your brain is broken

It's pretty obvious to anyone, if you want to get a good picture of something which takes ~40,000km to walk around, taking a photo from near the ground, regardless of how many megapixels it is, is not going to give you a good view compared with taking a picture from very high up (like a satellite). However you said distance is not a factor Yeah right

Keep up

What are you on about? a picture of the earth from the ground!!!!! I was referring to the image taken by the Russians from the high high space place. I haven't  the slightest clue what you are waffling about nor am I interested!

Then you should keep up. You replied to my post when I specifically said I can not see the shape of the Earth from this 108 Gigapixel photo. You said it's just because I need new glasses Naturally people who reply afterwards believed you looked at the photo

In the future, so you dont make a fool of yourself I suggest you take the time to read peoples posts and click on the links provided so that you get the context

Quote from: JJA on July 27, 2021, 09:51:17 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

Actually, there are times when wide angle and fisheye lenses don't distort the image.

One such example is when taking pictures of something circular, centered in the lens.  Like a giant ball. 

Taking a picture of a circle with a wide angle lens, provided you use the correct angle will result in, a circle.

The wide angle lens in the ISS shot isn't making a square Earth look round.

You are correct to a point. Wide angle lenses come with the inherent ability to make near objects appear larger than far away objects in the frame. Taking a picture of the earth from orbit with even a 14mm lens the distortion as you say would be minimal as the nearest part of the earth, relatively speaking, is not that much closer than the part that is farthest away. There of course will be distortion but it will be minimal. because of the subject and the subject distance.

Exactly, and there are also many types of distortion. What (most) wide angle lenses do not do to a centered circle is distort it's shape. It might be bigger or smaller (as with any zoom) but a perfect circle will still remain a perfect circle. It won't turn into a square or a triangle.

The size of a circle will be distorted but the SHAPE will not. If it's centered, and if the wide angle isn't some weird and rare severely non-symmetrical design.

So now I find myself agreeing with Shifter about Timmy being foolish.  The link in the post I replied to was from the Empire state building.  I spoke about it.  But he doesn't ever admit it when he goes off half cooked and stupid.

Red letter day, Shifter my friend, same side for some weird reason (well an idiot with emotional problem but we will just call it weird).  This must be a sign of the end times.

I was talking about the one the Russians took from SPACE that far away place, high high high up in the sky. Have you had a memory lapse? The highest resolution image to date.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

Yet still not good enough to give you the exact shape.