Photos of a spherical Earth

  • 59 Replies
  • 4130 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2023, 04:42:02 AM »
Yes, it does indicate they are fakes, since we magnify on the moon, from Earth, the only reason they've never done the same thing, is because they're faking it.

Ummm, what? Youíve already been shown magnification, or whatever weird thing youíre looking for. Also, what do think satellite images are?
 Iím not even sure you know what you are arguing. You literally just made up some weird requirement because all your other arguments have failed.

Your argument amounts to space agencies didnít strap a p1000 to their probe so itís fake. Are you high or incredibly daft? That is the literal worst argument Iíve ever come across from an FEr. You should be embarrassed.

How about we start with how high is your firmament? And how did you measure it?

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2023, 12:58:15 PM »
Yes, it does indicate they are fakes, since we magnify on the moon, from Earth, the only reason they've never done the same thing, is because they're faking it.
No, it doesn't.
This is just your dishonest BS.
Again, they are under no obligation to do what you want.
If you want such videos, go to the moon and take them yourself.

I also provided clear footage from a game which shows what you were asking for.
Does that mean the footage from the game is real?

Relax, the truth is always better than lies, in the end.
So why do you keep on lying?

Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2023, 10:17:35 PM »
They realized long ago, that horizons would curve across Earth, where we would have SEEN a distinct curve across them, in planes, every single day of the year, in order to show a ball Earth from 'space' at the end of it.

So they skipped over that part, and showed a ball Earth from space, and ignored the first part of it, seeing how a horizon magically starts to look 'curved', before it looked like a ball in 'space'.

No matter how large a sphere is, it will show a curve over it, as it MUST curve throughout it's entire surface. That is the big problem they have, and cannot excuse away.

It is impossible to simulate this, and they know it. So they ignore it, and hope nobody notices there's no simulation for it, only some crappy attempts at it, which all have failed, miserably.

Faking it only goes so far, and it stops instantly, right here.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2023, 10:25:32 PM »
They realized long ago, that horizons would curve across Earth, where we would have SEEN a distinct curve across them, in planes, every single day of the year, in order to show a ball Earth from 'space' at the end of it.

So they skipped over that part, and showed a ball Earth from space, and ignored the first part of it, seeing how a horizon magically starts to look 'curved', before it looked like a ball in 'space'.

No matter how large a sphere is, it will show a curve over it, as it MUST curve throughout it's entire surface. That is the big problem they have, and cannot excuse away.

It is impossible to simulate this, and they know it. So they ignore it, and hope nobody notices there's no simulation for it, only some crappy attempts at it, which all have failed, miserably.

Faking it only goes so far, and it stops instantly, right here.

Who is "they"?

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2023, 11:10:19 PM »
They realized long ago, that horizons would curve across Earth
Just like the circular horizon, that curves around us, that we observe.

No matter how large a sphere is, it will show a curve over it, as it MUST curve throughout it's entire surface.
How many times will you repeat this same BS before you accept it is wrong?
A sufficiently large curve is indistinguishable from a straight line.

That is the big problem for you, and you cannot excuse it away.

Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2023, 06:40:34 AM »
Since the Fifties, there have been literally millions of photos taken from space by NASA, the Hubble telescope, and others - showing that the Earth and planets are spherical. The explanation I've gotten from flat earthers/space deniers is that these have all been faked...even the ones from the pre-cgi days were supposedly created using some secret software technology that predates Photoshop, etc. So my questions are:

- Why hasn't a single one of those CGI artists come forward and blown the whistle after all these years?

- Why is there no evidence to date that such sophisticated software existed in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies?

Because it wasn't sophisticated software. In fact, it was often hardware. Black and white photos of people posing in front of a black canvas with white dots for moon pictures. Artist renderings.



You can clearly see that this is an artist's drawing that has been pasted on a space background. No CGI required. Here's a hint why I know it's an artist's rendering. Forested areas don't actually show up from space! The average tree is less than 100 ft tall. How in the actual hell would you be able to capture that with film? It's nothing more than high quality pretty pictures. They literally drew a picture, cut out some circles and pasted on a background. Not hard.

Realistic spraypaint of Earth.

It took one person about 20 or thirty minutes to put together.

Imagibe if there were a team of people...

These people didn't come forward because they had a freaking huge paycheck if they went along with it, and a NDA threatening legal action if they didn't. Easy choice there! Only someone like me would speak up, and I'd lose everything. Including my life.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2023, 06:59:17 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2023, 07:10:48 AM »
These people didn't come forward because they had a freaking huge paycheck if they went along with it, and a NDA threatening legal action if they didn't. Easy choice there! Only someone like me would speak up, and I'd lose everything. Including my life.

There's a little tiny thing called "evidence". Have you ever heard of the word?

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2023, 03:04:43 PM »
You can clearly see that this is an artist's drawing that has been pasted on a space background.
No, we can't.
We can tell that it is a composite image, and I assume the star background is fake, but we can't tell if it was a real photo of Earth used, or if it was a collection of photos stitched together, or a drawing.
I see nothing in there to indicate it is not a single photo of Earth, with the outside cut out and placed over a crap background.

Here's a hint why I know it's an artist's rendering. Forested areas don't actually show up from space! The average tree is less than 100 ft tall. How in the actual hell would you be able to capture that with film?
So your typical complete inability to understand how vision works?

A pixel in an iPhone 12 mini retina display is a mere 53.4 um.
This is absolutely tiny.
Yet when it is lit up, you can still see it from quite some distance away, especially when neighbouring pixels are lit up as well.
In the case of multiple pixels to make an image, you aren't seeing an individual pixel. You are seeing the combined effect of multiple pixels.

A human hair is less than 100 um wide.
If you were to try to see a single human hair from 1 m away, you almost certainly couldn't.
But if you have a bunch of them on someone's head you can easily see that hair from a few hundred m away.
You aren't seeing the individual hairs, you are seeing the combined effect of lots of hairs.

When you have a large forested area, you aren't seeing individual trees. You see the combined effect of multiple trees.
So yes, you CAN see it as green from space.

These people didn't come forward because they had a freaking huge paycheck if they went along with it
Previously didn't you say basically no money was spent?
Now you are saying loads of money is being wasted on these artists? That need to churn out so many photos it isn't funny?

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2023, 08:06:27 PM »
Since the Fifties, there have been literally millions of photos taken from space by NASA, the Hubble telescope, and others - showing that the Earth and planets are spherical. The explanation I've gotten from flat earthers/space deniers is that these have all been faked...even the ones from the pre-cgi days were supposedly created using some secret software technology that predates Photoshop, etc. So my questions are:

- Why hasn't a single one of those CGI artists come forward and blown the whistle after all these years?

- Why is there no evidence to date that such sophisticated software existed in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies?

Because it wasn't sophisticated software. In fact, it was often hardware. Black and white photos of people posing in front of a black canvas with white dots for moon pictures. Artist renderings.



You can clearly see that this is an artist's drawing that has been pasted on a space background. No CGI required. Here's a hint why I know it's an artist's rendering. Forested areas don't actually show up from space! The average tree is less than 100 ft tall. How in the actual hell would you be able to capture that with film? It's nothing more than high quality pretty pictures. They literally drew a picture, cut out some circles and pasted on a background. Not hard.

Realistic spraypaint of Earth.

It took one person about 20 or thirty minutes to put together.

Imagibe if there were a team of people...

These people didn't come forward because they had a freaking huge paycheck if they went along with it, and a NDA threatening legal action if they didn't. Easy choice there! Only someone like me would speak up, and I'd lose everything. Including my life.


Where is the video of the making of the first picture?  The one in the video is, while quite awesome, clearly not the same.  The background of the picture you posted is clearly not originally part of the Earth image in the center.
Plus, the 20 or 30 minutes to make these spray painted images, your claim by the way, is way more time than the single himawari-8 satellite takes real time pictures.  It sends an image every 10 minutes, that can be corroborated from the ground with large enough weather systems that perfectly match what's in the images.  And you have to do all the other fakery involved since there are literally hundreds of partnered groups, both amateur and professional, who are also receiving the data transmissions containing those images in real time.
So, once again, your stupid excuses are stupid.  If you weren't so obviously trying to make FE supporters look like simpletons, your ignorant and dishonest ravings might be funny.  But you don't have the required skillset to properly entertain me. 

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2023, 09:06:17 PM »
easy all the CGI artists are killed after they are finished the government has them come up with a few 100 pictures that satisfy the sheep of the public then whack them and get the next one if you look closely you can see slight style differences in all of them why? because of different CGI artists and for your second claim the governments just lied to us they created photoshop in the 50s and when they created a more advanced tool they released it to the public playing you all for fools

I have never seen more stupidity  :o
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2023, 09:14:51 PM »
All photos work with perspective. I am still amazed at how our world is structured. Until now, no one can explain what this perspective is. In fact, the sun is so big that its rays must directly pass through the entire space and completely wash the earth. But we always see how the rays scatter from behind the clouds, creating the illusion of a spotlight. I can't explain it.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2023, 04:09:58 AM »
All photos work with perspective. I am still amazed at how our world is structured. Until now, no one can explain what this perspective is. In fact, the sun is so big that its rays must directly pass through the entire space and completely wash the earth. But we always see how the rays scatter from behind the clouds, creating the illusion of a spotlight. I can't explain it.
Do you mean no one can explain FE "perspective", or real perspective?

Because real perspective is just an issue of angles.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2023, 06:16:04 AM »
Well, I find the flat earth perspective explanation just insane.
And at the expense of the real perspective - it cannot be explained by simple calculations of angles. It is so incomprehensible why information about the true positions of distant stars spreads instantly, ignoring all known laws of physics.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2023, 06:32:18 PM »
And at the expense of the real perspective - it cannot be explained by simple calculations of angles. It is so incomprehensible why information about the true positions of distant stars spreads instantly, ignoring all known laws of physics.
The apparent location of an object is based upon the angle to that object. Its angular size is base upon the angle to either edge.
But that information doesn't spread instantly. It is delayed by the speed of light, as the light needs to leave the star and travel to Earth.
If Proxima Centuri magically teleported to the other side of the solar system, it would take us roughly 4.2 years to notice.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2023, 11:18:59 PM »
Then why do the torsion weight - (крутильные веса) react not to the apparent position of the stars, but to their true - calculated? On where the star should be according to the calculations of its movement in time. The fact is officially confirmed, but silent.
Until now, everyone believes in the gravity of the sun, and the deflection of light rays from the stars, and this is based on fake photographs of a solar eclipse. I understand that the earth is not flat... but what we are told is not always the truth! And what is most interesting, all the photos of the earth from space are real, but here's the catch, the earth itself is different on them. This brings to mind many things. There is a theory that we live in a time loop of 120 years, and outside of it the world will change for us. Perhaps because so many discussions are going on at the expense of all these photos and videos, that now they do not always correspond to what we see in our present ???
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2023, 03:25:23 AM »
Then why do the torsion weight - (крутильные веса) react not to the apparent position of the stars, but to their true - calculated? On where the star should be according to the calculations of its movement in time. The fact is officially confirmed, but silent.
By "officially confirmed, but silent" do you mean you have no official source for it, and instead just a claim?
If so, that isn't officially confirmed.

Do you have anything to demonstrate torsion balances are affected by the position of stars, using their true position, rather than apparent position?

Until now, everyone believes in the gravity of the sun, and the deflection of light rays from the stars, and this is based on fake photographs of a solar eclipse. I understand that the earth is not flat... but what we are told is not always the truth! And what is most interesting, all the photos of the earth from space are real, but here's the catch, the earth itself is different on them. This brings to mind many things. There is a theory that we live in a time loop of 120 years, and outside of it the world will change for us. Perhaps because so many discussions are going on at the expense of all these photos and videos, that now they do not always correspond to what we see in our present ???
Could it be because those photos were taken from different cameras, from different positions/distances?
Just like photos of other objects taken from different cameras from different distances will appear different?

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2023, 10:49:58 AM »
I don't think I can satisfy your curiosity about torsion weights in any way. In view of the complete blocking of all Russian sites in our country. You can search the Russian sector for the information you are interested in. But keep in mind that now the whole history is being rewritten in Russia. On this, this part of the topic can be closed due to my lack of evidence base. For no one else in the world is interested in such experiments with torsion balances. Because the state of the art has advanced a lot.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2023, 11:13:01 AM »
This is the first time I hear about such that photos look different if the object is shot from different distances - all the curvature of images from different lenses of different cameras cannot change the photos so much. I think everyone has seen these NASA shots of different earths (size doesn't count). The pictures are really different if you compare them on a computer.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2023, 03:38:13 PM »
This is the first time I hear about such that photos look different if the object is shot from different distances - all the curvature of images from different lenses of different cameras cannot change the photos so much. I think everyone has seen these NASA shots of different earths (size doesn't count). The pictures are really different if you compare them on a computer.
Just what differences are you talking about?

I have seen the continents appearing to be different sizes, due to being viewed from different distances.
Here is a simulation for a house:


An an example for a RE, including using a physical globe:


The other effect is colour, which can be off due to different cameras, or different white balance on a camera, and plenty are false colour images, e.g. images taken in IR, which are then shifted.

And some are composites, where they take lots and lots of photos and stitch them together.

So can you explain what you think is so different that isn't simply an affect of the above?

Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2023, 10:24:34 PM »
Since the Fifties, there have been literally millions of photos taken from space by NASA, the Hubble telescope, and others - showing that the Earth and planets are spherical. The explanation I've gotten from flat earthers/space deniers is that these have all been faked...even the ones from the pre-cgi days were supposedly created using some secret software technology that predates Photoshop, etc. So my questions are:

- Why hasn't a single one of those CGI artists come forward and blown the whistle after all these years?

- Why is there no evidence to date that such sophisticated software existed in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies?

Back before software, I grew up in the 1980s. I learned how to cut and paste. Funny thing, you can take a picture of an astronaut cut out agat a blackboard and it really looks like someone out in space.
Even funnier thing, they have composite videos since the first films. The Great Train Robbery has outside the window filmed in one shot, and the scene aboard had a composite.

Your insistence that it must be CGI is nothing but hopeful nonsense. Not only can there be still shots that are not where you think they are, but straight up videos. Yes, that's right, CGI is not necessary for a composite. It just makes it so people like me can do it myself, instead of a team of photographers pasting shots together. To do a composite only takes cutting out a hole in a cel of film and running the two together. I'd make a mess of it because was terrible at art, but ppl who know what they are doing can mostly certainly do it, well before CGI.



This movie was also made before serious CGI. It's a movie about space, check it out!



As was this. Also about space!
 


I know you want any and every excuse to deny this stuff, but sooner or later, you simply need to admit that if film studio can do it, anyone who makes money from people funding the government for space travel can do it.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2023, 02:19:42 AM »
This movie was also made before serious CGI. It's a movie about space, check it out!
As was this. Also about space!
And none are like the actual footage from space.

You need CGI to make it convincing.

Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #51 on: June 16, 2023, 06:42:15 AM »
Bullshit.

In Wizard of Oz, the entire background where the road leads to Oz is pasted on a nice picture. Only the road and the people are real. I would not have known this, except for watching a video of it. The whole shot was done long before CGI.

Film someone swimming. Cut their body out, frame by frame. Paste it inside a ship and voila, zero gravity. Easy. Will it be 100% clean? Hell, I could do CGI myself and it wouldn't be 100% clean! Because it's about SKILL not technology. I am an amateur. I seem to overcut or leave white spots alot. I admit that I'm not great at CGI. But I'm not a professional. These ppl who make movies are. Ben Hur was done using some sort of revolutionary compositing system (they split the colors, and refilter them) I honestly didn't realize any of it was composited, I thought the gladiator race scene looked 100% real and that they protected the actors some other way. I thought the crowd looked real too. All composite. That's how convincing it got.

Did you know that TVs are able to do this compositing before the broadcast gets from the studio to your home? So much for trusting live broadcasts.

So, when NASA tell you that this Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon and they say this is a live broadcast, uhhhh no it isn't. Preassembled in a studio, like everything you watch on TV. Nothing, not the news, not reality TV, nothing on TV is real. 9/11 isn't real, school shootings, who is elected president, it's all scripted. The media has control of things, and like a reality show, they can just vote ppl off the island if things don't suit.



Here, this is a restored copy of the Apollo 11 thingy.

What we have is most grainy B/W of objects placed on a surface, black in the distance, and sorta sand/granite texture and people bouncing and taking longer to descend.

With no CGI at all, just film, I could do the same. In fact, the static could be produced by filming and taping over stuff until the tape degraded, and retaping to a new tape. As for the rest, I had a black posterboard (oh look you can't see the sky, because no atmosphere), a mix of loam, sand, and gravel to get the right texture. Objects planted, the moon surface, all of it is only enhanced by black/white. Were it in color, we'd probably look at the whole thing and start laughing. It would look like objects placed in the sand in a studio, and we'd be able to see the black poster and the lighting. They probably also had to retake the shot where the flag is planted as it keot falling over.

I skimmed this video, and the camera never moved. While it could be a still camera from the shuttle, seriously what proof have we that it did not take place in a studio? All shots were at a single frame!

« Last Edit: June 16, 2023, 06:48:07 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2023, 10:08:50 AM »
I skimmed this video, and the camera never moved. While it could be a still camera from the shuttle, seriously what proof have we that it did not take place in a studio? All shots were at a single frame!
What proof do we have that it did? All we have is proof that it COULD have been filmed in a studio. There's no reason for the camera to move; there's no wind or animals or anything to move it.

As for proof it wasn't, we have the moon mirrors. We can look at parts of the solar system, and gain info about the moon itself, by bouncing lasers off a little mirror on the moon.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science/

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #53 on: June 16, 2023, 04:27:16 PM »
Film someone swimming. Cut their body out, frame by frame. Paste it inside a ship and voila, zero gravity.
And it will look different to zero g in space, because space isn't water.

So, when NASA tell you that this Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon and they say this is a live broadcast, uhhhh no it isn't.
Do you have any proof of that at all?
No. It is just your paranoid fantasy because you can't handle reality.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #54 on: June 17, 2023, 01:01:37 PM »
This is the first time I hear about such that photos look different if the object is shot from different distances - all the curvature of images from different lenses of different cameras cannot change the photos so much. I think everyone has seen these NASA shots of different earths (size doesn't count). The pictures are really different if you compare them on a computer.
Just what differences are you talking about?

I have seen the continents appearing to be different sizes, due to being viewed from different distances.
Here is a simulation for a house:


An an example for a RE, including using a physical globe:


The other effect is colour, which can be off due to different cameras, or different white balance on a camera, and plenty are false colour images, e.g. images taken in IR, which are then shifted.

And some are composites, where they take lots and lots of photos and stitch them together.

So can you explain what you think is so different that isn't simply an affect of the above?

With graphics at home, you are fundamentally wrong! It doesn't work that way from long distances. The ratio of angle to detail size will always be virtually the same when the object is very far away. And then everything was filmed from orbit, where the distance is always more or less the same. I think that at this point no one will be able to explain what the cameras really shot, since no one still understands how perspective works. As I understand it, there is no answer why any triangulation of the sun will result in a point source with a distance of up to 6000 km. And its appearance is like diverging rays from the sky, while the rays from it are actually straight, passing through the whole earth without the slightest angle to it ...
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #55 on: June 17, 2023, 03:34:39 PM »
With graphics at home, you are fundamentally wrong! It doesn't work that way from long distances. The ratio of angle to detail size will always be virtually the same when the object is very far away. And then everything was filmed from orbit, where the distance is always more or less the same.
It isn't merely a case of detail size, it is also a case of how far you are viewing it from, and how much it changes over the shot; and what affect this has for a round object, with the distance to the horizon.

For Earth with a radius of 6371 km, if you are in LEO, just 400 km above the surface, then the land directly below you is a mere 400 km away. The land much further away, at the horizon, is over 2000 km away. And this means you are only seeing a 40 degree span of Earth, which will take up 140 degrees of your FOV.

So no, filming from orbit does NOT mean the distance away is more or less the same. Not if you are considering the distance to different parts of the planet.

If we go up to geostationary orbit at 35 000 km altitude, then it gets closer, with the distance to the horizon being 41 000 km, the angular span of Earth being 162 degrees, and it taking up 18 degrees of your FOV.

Further out, at the distance to the moon, the difference starts to become insignificant, with the distance to all points on Earth being basically 400 000 km. But more importantly, you then see a span of Earth of roughly 178 degrees.

Again, the most important thing that is changing is the angular span of Earth that you are viewing. When you are low (quite close to Earth), it starts out tiny. As you go further away, it increases in size, approaching 180 degrees.
And what this means, is that as you get further away, something of a fixed size will take up less and less of the visible portion of Earth, because the visible portion is getting larger.

I think that at this point no one will be able to explain what the cameras really shot, since no one still understands how perspective works.
Conversely, I think it has already been explained, especially as people do understand how perspective works, as it is quite simple if you actually stop and think about it.
I also note you still cannot articulate just what problem you think there is. You claim there is an issue with Earth looking different, but you can't explain just what this difference is.
Should that lead me to conclude it is the differences already explained?

As I understand it, there is no answer why any triangulation of the sun will result in a point source with a distance of up to 6000 km.
There is no "answer" because that is a false claim.
That is not ANY triangulation that gives that number.
That is highly specific triangulation, based upon faulty assumptions.
That is assuming Earth is flat, and then taking note of the angle to the sun at specific locations.
The more commonly used locations is the equator and 45 degrees north, during the equinox.
Where then it appears directly overhead for a person at the equator, and at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees for a person at 45 degrees north.
If you falsely assume Earth is flat, then you construct a triangle and get an altitude of the sun of 5000 km.
If you pick a different location, you get a different height.
For example, if you pick 10 degrees north, you get a height of 6300 km. If you pick 75 degrees north, you get a height of ~2200 km.

So no, this invalid triangulations, relying upon a false assumption of Earth being flat, does NOT give 6000 km all the time.

You can also see it is quite clearly BS by going the other way.
People observe the sun appear to set.
Instead of actually setting, lets put it at an angle of elevation of 1 degree. And lets use your height of 6000 km.
This would require it to be above a point some 343 000 km away.
While it is still observed directly overhead a point on Earth.

So the FE assumption does not work.

If you discard that FE assumption, and instead use a RE, the observed angles mean the sun is very far away, with a distance so great we cannot reliably triangulate it based upon observations from Earth, as those observations would allow an infinite distance. Instead, all we can do is say it is very far away.

And its appearance is like diverging rays from the sky, while the rays from it are actually straight, passing through the whole earth without the slightest angle to it ...
Not merely diverging rays. They appear to diverge from the sun, until they pass overhead, after which they appear to converge.

There are plenty of other things that do this as well.
For example, if you have a divided highway, or a railway, which is straight. It appears to diverge from the horizon, until it reaches you after which it appears to converge to the opposite horizon.

This is a very simple result of perspective most people understand.
Parallel lines appear to converge with distance, which can also be considered the other way around where they appear to diverge as they get closer.
So the parallel lines coming from the sun appear to diverge as they get closer to you, and then appear to converge as they go towards the horizon opposite the sun.

So just what is left to explain?

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #56 on: June 17, 2023, 10:40:59 PM »
1. I tell you about Thomas, and you tell me about Yarem, We do not understand each other. You are absolutely not talking about that. With what you bring - I agree. But now try to understand what I'm talking about, otherwise you can talk about nothing ad infinitum.
2. The outlines of the continents do not match. And again a reference to the first point.
3. Triangulation was done on the territory of the CIS, therefore the argument you cited that false assumptions about a flat earth were deliberately made is incorrect. You probably haven't watched these videos. I understand perfectly well that the earth is round and you can not prove it to me every time. I just would like an interesting discussion of some of the oddities of our world. And not to divide everything into black and white - the world does not work that way.
4. Everyone understands perspective, but how it works and why it works this way from the point of view of physics - still there is no explanation.
5. I understand that you have not encountered RHYTHMODYNAMICS (banned in Russia), otherwise the discussion would have been in a different vein. The common mistake of those arguing here is that they occupy only two points of view. Yes, I understand that these are the unspoken rules of this platform, but is it really impossible to talk about the same thing, but only in a multipolar vector?
If you understand me, then you can probably explain what the geostationary orbit actually is, and why the photos of the earth from it are always different. All of the above statements are directly related to the topic of the debate.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2023, 02:25:24 AM »
2. The outlines of the continents do not match. And again a reference to the first point.
In what way do they not match?
Can you elaborate to explain the issue at all?

3. Triangulation was done on the territory of the CIS, therefore the argument you cited that false assumptions about a flat earth were deliberately made is incorrect. You probably haven't watched these videos. I understand perfectly well that the earth is round and you can not prove it to me every time. I just would like an interesting discussion of some of the oddities of our world. And not to divide everything into black and white - the world does not work that way.
Probably because that is the common claim by FEers, and you have provided no details at all about this triangulation you claim which results in an altitude of 6000 km.
Can you provide any details?

4. Everyone understands perspective, but how it works and why it works this way from the point of view of physics - still there is no explanation.
There is an explanation, an incredibly simple one.
Our vision, and the vision of cameras, work based upon angles.

This turns it into simple geometry.
For example, if you have an object that is at right angles to a line drawn from your eye to the midpoint, then you can construct 2 congruent right angle triangles.
One common line will be the line from your eye to the middle of the object, with a distance of d.
They will then each have a line perpendicular to that of length h/2, where h is the "height" of the object.
The final line is the tip of the object back to your eye.
So the angle it subtends at your eye will be the sum of the angles at your eye for the triangles.
This means the angle is 2*atan(h/2d).

At large distances, tan(x)~= x, so atan(x) ~= x.
This means for large distances, the angular size of the object will be h/d (in radians).
So doubling the distance halves the size.

If it isn't at right angles, you can use the law of cosines c^2=a^2+b^2-2*a*b*cos(c).

Just what do you think isn't explained?

5. I understand that you have not encountered RHYTHMODYNAMICS (banned in Russia), otherwise the discussion would have been in a different vein. The common mistake of those arguing here is that they occupy only two points of view. Yes, I understand that these are the unspoken rules of this platform, but is it really impossible to talk about the same thing, but only in a multipolar vector?
If you understand me, then you can probably explain what the geostationary orbit actually is, and why the photos of the earth from it are always different. All of the above statements are directly related to the topic of the debate.
A geostationary orbit is an orbit with an inclination of 0, and which has an orbital period equal to the period of rotation of Earth.

Not all photos from Earth are from geostationary orbits.
And again, I am yet to see a difference that isn't expected from different angles, different distances, different cameras, and so on.

*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2023, 11:33:43 AM »
2. The outlines of the continents do not match. And again a reference to the first point.
In what way do they not match?
Can you elaborate to explain the issue at all?

3. Triangulation was done on the territory of the CIS, therefore the argument you cited that false assumptions about a flat earth were deliberately made is incorrect. You probably haven't watched these videos. I understand perfectly well that the earth is round and you can not prove it to me every time. I just would like an interesting discussion of some of the oddities of our world. And not to divide everything into black and white - the world does not work that way.
Probably because that is the common claim by FEers, and you have provided no details at all about this triangulation you claim which results in an altitude of 6000 km.
Can you provide any details?

4. Everyone understands perspective, but how it works and why it works this way from the point of view of physics - still there is no explanation.
There is an explanation, an incredibly simple one.
Our vision, and the vision of cameras, work based upon angles.

This turns it into simple geometry.
For example, if you have an object that is at right angles to a line drawn from your eye to the midpoint, then you can construct 2 congruent right angle triangles.
One common line will be the line from your eye to the middle of the object, with a distance of d.
They will then each have a line perpendicular to that of length h/2, where h is the "height" of the object.
The final line is the tip of the object back to your eye.
So the angle it subtends at your eye will be the sum of the angles at your eye for the triangles.
This means the angle is 2*atan(h/2d).

At large distances, tan(x)~= x, so atan(x) ~= x.
This means for large distances, the angular size of the object will be h/d (in radians).
So doubling the distance halves the size.

If it isn't at right angles, you can use the law of cosines c^2=a^2+b^2-2*a*b*cos(c).

Just what do you think isn't explained?

5. I understand that you have not encountered RHYTHMODYNAMICS (banned in Russia), otherwise the discussion would have been in a different vein. The common mistake of those arguing here is that they occupy only two points of view. Yes, I understand that these are the unspoken rules of this platform, but is it really impossible to talk about the same thing, but only in a multipolar vector?
If you understand me, then you can probably explain what the geostationary orbit actually is, and why the photos of the earth from it are always different. All of the above statements are directly related to the topic of the debate.
A geostationary orbit is an orbit with an inclination of 0, and which has an orbital period equal to the period of rotation of Earth.

Not all photos from Earth are from geostationary orbits.
And again, I am yet to see a difference that isn't expected from different angles, different distances, different cameras, and so on.


I take my hat off to you.
The earth believes, because magic exists!

Re: Photos of a spherical Earth
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2023, 10:02:57 AM »
easy all the CGI artists are killed after they are finished the government has them come up with a few 100 pictures that satisfy the sheep of the public then whack them and get the next one if you look closely you can see slight style differences in all of them why? because of different CGI artists and for your second claim the governments just lied to us they created photoshop in the 50s and when they created a more advanced tool they released it to the public playing you all for fools

I'm new to the party here, so I apologize if this was already asked, but of what benefit does the government have in killing people and hiding the fact that the Earth is flat? What justifies all of this?