The public at large knows the truth - the world is a sphere.You can believe visible, testable and reproducible science, or you can believe what a few people with no proof whatsoever say. What sounds reasonable to you?

I mean, if you wanna get picky the world isn't a sphere, it's an oblate spheroid. :P

Not that i'm aware of?

Yes...he is. Neil pulled that argument out of his ass when people starting going out and doing the measurements for themselves and confronting TPTB about the results, as described in my links. The problem with it is that TPTB told us for decades, and still do most of the time, exact dimensions for a sphere earth and even doctored up some "photos" of it, as seen here...notice the differences? They also fail to mention that even if the earth was an "oblate spheroid", there would still be math to determine the rate of the curvature...of course I haven't seen any of them go and do those new calculations yet...probably because they know that people would just go out and, test their new math and prove again that the curvature is not present....

The problem with it is that TPTB told us for decades, and still do most of the time, exact dimensions for a sphere earth and even doctored up some "photos" of it, as seen here...notice the differences?

I notice the differences.

Do you think that these pictures are also doctored ?

The images you posted use different lenses from different distances...if that were the case for the nasa "photos", then the size and shape of the globe would change as well, not just the continents. Compare 2002 and 20012 specifically.

And to be clear...i don not believe those NASA "photos" are photos at all...

then the size and shape of the globe would change as well, not just the continents.

Take a look at these diagrams.

On each picture, the top part represent the location of the observer next to a sphere where a red circle is drawn. The bottom part represents what the camera see. The red zone would take a greater proportion of the disc on the first picture (when the camera is close) than on the last one (when the camera is far). The red area could represent the US on a globe.

So, I disagree. The ratio between the size of the continents and the size of the apparent disc would change. Just like the nose seems to take a bigger part of the face in the last picture than on the first one.

If something is unclear in my diagrams, please tell me.

And to be clear...i don not believe those NASA "photos" are photos at all...

This is not relevant. I want to talk about the argument that you are using, not about the conclusion.

That's just not how it works man... take any ball that you have in your house that has markings on it. Now hold it up close to your eye. Take notice of the size of the ball (the earth) and the marking (the continent). Now outstretch your arm and watched as both the ball and the markings get smaller in unison.

What the NASA pictures are suggesting is that the globe shrank, or the NA continent got much bigger, because in both pictures the circumstance of the entirety is the same.

Take a look at the beginning of this video to see what I mean. Notice how everything is getting bigger and taking up more of the screen as it zoomed in? This video is NASA bullshit obviously, but at least they accurately demonstrate how it would look if it were a globe. ;)

I really got to get some sleep now man...been up for 20ish hours and tired af. o/

Now outstretch your arm and watched as both the ball and the markings get smaller in unison.

The ball is getting smaller. The markings are getting smaller. But not exactly at the same rate.

What about these pictures ? Are they also fake ?

I honestly didn't think that this was difficult to understand ...

Take a look at the beginning of this video to see what I mean.

This is a single picture, that is simply zoomed out and rotated for dramatic effect. It doesn't demonstrate what it would look like if we were getting physically closer to earth. Zooming and getting closer are not the same thing.

Notice how everything is getting bigger and taking up more of the screen as it zoomed in?

Yes, because it's simply zoomed. There is no difference in the distance at which the picture was taken. What I'm saying is that when you change the distance, then the ratio will change.

Seriously, what was unclear in the diagrams that I provided ?

The ball is getting smaller. The markings are getting smaller. But not exactly at the same rate

lol...wut? If they weren't moving at the same rate then they are two different objects, not one in the same...

What about these pictures ? Are they convincing enough ?

Yeah I have seen this image used as an example before. Its a trick. We simply know too little about these 3 different images to make a fair assessment. They are obviously taken from different angles and lighting conditions, but could honestly be 3 different globes taken at 3 different locations for all we know.

Wow. I'm really curious to see how far your denying of reality goes ...

First of all, I would like to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual shape of the Earth or the fact that NASA is faking its images. What I'm trying to show you is a simple fact about what happens when you take pictures of a sphere from different distances. It's a simple geometric situation, and you can ask on /r/photography if you want a simple answer from people that have no reason to lie to you.

So I just took three pictures from home, because I have a globe mini-bar. Here they are

What are you going to say now ? That I own three different globes in my home ?

It's okay to be wrong sometimes, there is nothing to be ashamed of. The situation is slightly counter-intuitive at first sight. But if you actually do the experiment yourself, you'll see that I'm not faking anything.

Your photos clearly show that you are taking the shots from different points of view not just distance, using different lighting, and that you are using zoom... you manipulated the variables to try and get a different result..but you did it much worst than the first globe pictures showed...

If you want to do a fair test. take a picture of the globe using the same zoom setting at all times, as well as maintaining the angle of the shot( degree plain from which you take the shots), and same constant light source, preferably one that you at no time block....and simply move your camera back in increments of whatever length you want.

If you do this you will see that the globe and its continents get smaller, taking up less and less space of the frame and keeping their ratio...as they should, because they are the same object.

Again, what the NASA "photos" show is that the circumference of the globe shrank independently from NA continent, or that the NA Continent grew independently from the globe. Their photos imply that they are taken from the same distance because the circumference of the 2002 and 2012 globes are equal.

Your photos clearly show that you are taking the shots from different points of view not just distance, using different lighting, and that you are using zoom... you manipulated the variables to try and get a different result.

Did I take three pictures of the same globe ? Do the ratio between the size of the note and the size of the globe change ?

Of course I manipulated the variables. But I didn't manipulate the globe, and I didn't CGI my pictures ! I'm telling you that you can take two real pictures of the SAME real sphere and have the impression that the US is taking more space in one picture than in the other.

If you want to do a fair test. take a picture of the globe using the same zoom setting at all times, as well as maintaining the angle of the shot( degree plain from which you take the shots), and same constant light source, preferably one that you at no time block....and simply move your camera back away from the globe in increments of whatever length you want.

Okay. Let's do this !

I took the same zoom setting on the camera. I put the camera on a small chair to be sure that I am always at the same height. I maintained the angle of the shot to the best of my effort. Same constant light source and I didn't block it. I took four shots moving the camera back away from the globe.

Here are the pictures

If you do this you will see that the globe and its continents get smaller, taking up less and less space of the frame and keeping their ratio...as they should, because they are the same object.

So what do we notice ? Both the globe and the note are getting smaller. Yes, we already agreed on that !

What about the ratio ? Let's measure the size of the globe and the size of the note on each picture. If the ratio stays the same then I was wrong. If the ratio are different then you were wrong. Does that seem fair ?

• On the first picture, the globe is approximatively 3000 pixels wide, and the note is 1500 pixels wide. ratio = 2
  
• On the second picture, the globe is approximatively 1400 pixels wide, and the note is 560 pixels wide. ratio = 2.5
  
• On the third picture, the globe is approximatively 560 pixels wide, and the note is 200 pixels wide. ratio = 2.8
  
• On the last picture, the globe is approximatively 360 pixels wide and the note is 120 pixels wide. So the ratio is 3

This is not the same ratio.

Their photos imply that they are taken from the same distance because the circumference of the 2002 and 2012 globes are equal.

But the first three pictures that I showed had similar circumferences ...

So, when I'm showing three pictures of a globe in my house with equal circumference, you seem to infer that the three pictures are taken from different distances and with a different zoom/lighting/settings. But when it comes to NASA's pictures showing the exact same phenomenon, then you don't understand that it could be caused by the same thing ? That's some heavy cognitive dissonance ...

But the first three pictures that I showed had similar circumferences ...

so not equal? and honestly..."similar" is even a stretching it...

This round of pictures is far more fair...not perfect, but it shows pretty much what I have been describing. Your angles are slightly off. You are using a pink piece of paper, which is indentation of the globe, instead of using the fixed images on the globe to take your measurements. (if you maintained variables, ratio would remain the same as well...it has to because nothing is changing in physical reality)

But again, this round of photos is illustrating my argument well enough for most people to understand what I am getting at.

Take a look at the nasa "photos"...
Take a look at yours
And take a look at this one I just snapped.

And tell me you honestly believe they didn't just slap a bigger NA onto a globe they cooked up on a computer...

so not equal? and honestly..."similar" is even a stretching it...

How dishonest are you ?

The apparent diameter of the Globe in the first picture and the last picture have a difference of less than 2%. That's not equal, but I would say that the difference is sufficiently small to be able to say "similar".

If I changed just very slightly the distance or the zoom, I would be able to get exactly the same circumference.

This round of pictures is far more fair...not perfect, but it shows pretty much what I have been describing. Your angles are slightly off. You are using a pink piece of paper, which is indipendant of the globe, instead of using the fixed images on the globe to take your measurements.

I was expecting this ...

Here are three new pictures without the note. I centered things on Africa because it's slightly easier to see and measure. Same phenomenon the ratio between the apparent diameter of the globe and the apparent width of Africa changes from 1.34 to 1.75.

What new excuse will you find now ?

(if you maintained variables, ratio would remain the same as well...it has to because nothing is changing in physical reality)

I explained to you why it's not the case. The part of the sphere that is directly in front of you is closer from your eye than the part that you see close to the edge. When you are far away from the sphere, this is not really affecting the relative apparent sizes, when you are close to the sphere it is affecting the relative apparent size in a more dramatic way.

Numerical application :

If you are 100m away from the center of a 1m radius sphere. Then the part that is directly facing you is 99m away from you and the part that is close to the edge is almost 100m away from you. Ratio of distances very close to 1.

Now if you are just 2m away from the center, the part that is directly facing you is 1m away from you and the part that is close to the edge is almost 2m away from you. Ratio of distances very close to 2.

Now my turn. Show me two pictures of the same sphere (a ball or whatever) with a marking on it, taken from two different distances (one from very close, and one from far enough). And show me that the ratio would remain the same.

I was expecting this ...

are u measuring at the same point?

are u measuring at the same point? or to say...measuring both the globe and Africa on the same line of lat/long?

Yes. But you don't have to trust me. You can measure the pictures yourself if you don't trust me. I'm not hiding anything. If you find different values and a ratio that does not change, please show me your measurements.

If you want to do your own experiment, and prove me wrong, then by all means do it !

EDIT: i mean, from what you have shown me already, it seems that the more you control your variables, the closer the ratio becomes to being equal...

What variables ? I'm doing exactly what you asked. I provided the pictures. Please explain what other variables I can possibly control. I can take another set of pictures if you are still not convinced.

bout to call it a night. Will continue this tomorrow.

Have a good one. o/

You already went to sleep 11 hours ago. You have a strange sleeping pattern ...

lol. Yeah I do. Sometimes I sleep a few hours a day, sometimes I sleep for like 10. It just depends on how i feel.

OK, so i took some shots of my own. Lemme know what you think.

album link

Thank you very much for this.

First remark, you didn't even double the distance between the first picture (3") and the last one (5"). I multiplied the distance by 24 in my example (between 25cm and 3m). So of course, if you are changing the distance by a smaller amount, you will have less variation.

Before I start doing the measurements, would you say that you controlled for all the variables that you could think of ?

If I find that the ratio between the size of the "chukit!" marking and the apparent diameter of the ball is changing between the three photos, would it satisfy you ? How much change in the ratio would be significant ?

I'm asking the questions beforehand because I don't want to lose time if you will find another excuse to not accept the results.

you didn't even double the distance between the first picture (3") and the last one (5"). I multiplied the distance by 12.

That's true, but it really shouldn't matter as long as the variables are constant, and my variables were much more constant than yours. And i feel that the differences in the 3 equally spaced positions is apparent enough to notice with the naked eye. And honestly, I would have taken some more at greater/shorter distances but I just ran out of room with my setup. It would have been short of the 6" mark and I wanted to keep distance increments constant. And I didn't want to do one any closer than 3 because it would have been so close to the camera that the ball/stand wouldn't have fit into the frame.

Before I start doing the measurements, would you say that you controlled for all the variables that you could think of ?

Yes, everything I could think of.

If I find that the ratio between the size of the "chukit!" marking and the apparent diameter of the ball is changing between the three photos, would it satisfy you ? How much change in the ratio would be significant ?

Well, i didn't measure them myself. I thought I would give you the pleasure :)

I mean...as long as you are measuring the same thing in each picture.... As I wrote in the photo description, the yogurt container is pretty sharp and has a curved face as well. So see what you get at multiple points. Like For the ball I would measure the width and or height of the exclamation point decimal and the space between the open end of the capital C....and on the yogurt container...say the distance between the top points of the y, the diameter of the O, and maybe the distance between either ends of those indentations at the top of the container. Just keep the point A to point B measurement constant for each picture...just keep it fair. ;)

And honestly man, I would just be happy if you would acknowledge that the differences in the earth photos from NASA are just too great to simply be a matter of perspective. Not necessarily the colors, because that could be adequately explained easy enough, but the glaring difference in size of the NA continent without the same glaring difference in size of the sphere.

Anyways, lemme know what you did and what you found and then I will give it a look. o/

That's true, but it really shouldn't matter as long as the variables are constant, and my variables were much more constant than yours.

That's my entire point, I claim that it does matter.

But I guess I'll have to do with what I have.

Like For the ball I would measure the width and or height of the exclamation point decimal and the space between the open end of the capital C....and on the yogurt container...say the distance between the top points of the y, the diameter of the O, and maybe the distance between either ends of those indentations at the top of the container.

Is it ok if I take an horizontal line just below the "yoplait" text and measure the distance between the lower left point of the Y and the lower right point of the t in "Yoplait" and compare it to the diameter of the yogurt taken on that same horizontal line ?

I used a ruler on my screen. I tried to be as precise as possible, so I don't think that my measurements are off by more than 1mm. But I will be generous and give 2mm of margin in my measurements and report it in the computations. Here is what I found :

• First picture : Yogurt = 29.9cm ±2cm, Yoplait = 17.6cm±2cm, Ratio = 1.699 ±0.031
  
• Second picture : Yougurt = 26.4cm, Yoplait = 14.7cm, Ratio = 1.796 ± 0.032
  
• Last picture : Yogurt=23.1cm, Yoplait = 12.6cm, Ratio = 1.833 ± 0.044
  

A significant change in the ratio. Much higher than the potential errors that I made in the measurements.

So either you didn't control for some "variables" or the ratio did indeed change.

the update with the 2" mark shot is on the album, along with another side by side with all 4.

Is it ok if I take an horizontal line just below the "yoplait" text and measure the distance between the lower left point of the Y and the lower right point of the t in "Yoplait" and compare it to the diameter of the yogurt taken on that same horizontal line ?

Not sure if following the grid-lines and eyeballing it is gonna be good enough, as the grid lines are constant throughout all the pictures(23x41) and the images will be in different grids in each picture. Is there a reason you switched from pixel count to ruler on your screen? Would it be better without the grid-lines?

ok, I took some measurements...think they are pretty close...within a few pixels anyways.

I have no idea how to calculate margin for error, so I'll let you do that. Check my math too. I also did one for the 2012 and 2002 nasa photo...something has got to be wrong there. Anyways...new pics are in the album

I gotta take a nap ;)

o/

ok, I took some measurements...think they are pretty close...within a few pixels anyways. I have no idea how to calculate margin for error, so I'll let you do that. Check my math too.

Your math seems correct (I only checked the first and last picture for the horizontal measurements). However, I took the "yoplait" sign for a reason . It's quite close from the middle of the screen, and hence the distance between the yoplait sign and the camera is as small as possible in the first shot. That's also why I asked for the 2" shot. The effect is much more pronounced at small distances (typically distances that are smaller than the radius of the sphere/cylinder)

But do we at least agree that the ratio did change between the 2" shot and the 5" shot ?

But do we at least agree that the ratio did change between the 2" shot and the 5" shot ?

I think it may have something to do with the camera lens focusing at that close of a distance. But yeah, definitely a noticeable change.

I will do some measurements on the yoplait as well. I just completely spaced it cuz I was tired.

I am also going to do another round of shots just so I can see how much of a variation we can get at distances similar to your pics. I got to dig out an ~ 6 foot folding table and rig up a center line, but I should be able to get a good amount of shots with a larger scale of distances.

I think simple lack of precision could explain for some of the variation in measurements in my shots, so I just wanna be thorough. Basically, I wanna see if the ratio is kept approximately at 1.85 as distance continues to increase.

This will take a bit more time.

So what did you think of the ratio change difference in the 2 NASA photos? Something has got to be screwy there don't you think?

I think it may have something to do with the camera lens focusing at that close of a distance.

I don't see how that could affect the result, but if you want to avoid that, take a larger ball and take the picture from a little further)

I will do some measurements on the yoplait as well. I just completely spaced it cuz I was tired.

I forgot to link that in my previous answer. Here are my measurements for the first and last picture for the yoplait sign.

I am also going to do another round of shots just so I can see how much of a variation we can get at distances similar to your pics. I got to dig out an ~ 6 foot folding table and rig up a center line, but I should be able to get a good amount of shots with a larger scale of distances.

Good idea.

If I may give you some advice, try to use the biggest possible ball you have at your disposal (to avoid focusing effects). A basketball would be a good idea for example. And the closest pictures are the most important one. So start your shots at the closest possible distance (that allows you to see the entire diameter of the ball)

I think simple lack of precision could explain for some of the variation in measurements in my shots, so I just wanna be thorough.

That's fair. You should do other tests.

Basically, I wanna see if the ratio is kept approximately at 1.85 as distance continues to increase.

That is not really going to work very well in your setting.

Geometry tells us that as you keep increasing the distance, the ratio will converge to a given value, which will be the actual physical ratio of distances measured directly on the sphere. (This is a simple geometric situation, I will try to show you some diagrams if I have time). So at some point, the variations will be much smaller than the possible errors. The distance at which the variations become too small to be noticeable depends on the dimensions of the sphere.

A rough estimation tells me that when the camera is at a distances of more than 10 times the radius of the ball, then the variations are almost negligeable.

What you need to do to change the ratio in a more drastic way is to decrease the distance a litlle bit. It will not be easy in your initial setting. So as I said, you should take a bigger ball, and take a shot from the closest distance you can. And then decrease the distance step by step.

So what did you think of the ratio change difference in the 2 NASA photos? Something has got to be screwy there don't you think?

Well, I can do the computations. The width of the US (taken from South California to North FLorida, as in your picture) is roughly 3300km. The Earth diameter is allegedly 6400km.

Let's do a little bit of geometry shall we ?

If a camera is located at a distance of H above the ground, then the apparent diameter of the Earth will be given by D (H) = 2* arcsin(6400/(6400+H)).

The apparent diameter of the US is given approximatively by d(H)= 2arctan(3300/(2H)). (If you know a little bit of trigonometry, this is not complicated. )

Is it possible for the ratio of apparent diameters to go from 1.9 to 3.4 ? Well, we just have to plot the function D(H)/d(H) and see if it can take these values. I found that for H = 5000km, the value is close to 1.9 and for H = 45000km the value is close to 3.4.

Which means that theoretically, if you took a picture of Earth from an altitude of 5000km the ratio would correspond to the 2012 pictures. And if you took a picture from an altitude of 45000km, the ratio would correspond to the 2002 pictures. So according to math, the difference in the pictures are perfectly reasonable.

So according to math, the difference in the pictures are perfectly reasonable.

ಠ_ಠ

Is there a problem with the maths ?

I mean, I cannot prove in any way that NASA's photos are real, and perhaps they are completely fake. What I did is a theoretical geometry exercise.

Here is a precise diagram of the two situations made with a geometry software. The results are slightly different from my computations as my formula for d(H) was an approximation. In this software it's much more accurate as there is no approximation.

If there is something wrong with the computations or the diagram, please tell me.

I get that the closer you get, the more your field of view is limited...but again, the nasa pics would suggest that the both were taken from the same distance because in both pics the globes have the same diameter...and both a to b points are viable. The problem with the nasa pics is that the a to b points are vastly different while the diameter of the globe is equal.

I get that the closer you get, the more your field of view is limited

So you agree that the ratio should change ?

the nasa pics would suggest that the both were taken from the same distance because in both pics the globes have the same diameter...

Seriously, you think that if the same object appear the same size on two different pictures, it means that the pictures were taken at the same distance ? Seriously ?

So ... Zooms do not exist in your strange world ? Reducing or increasing the size of a picture to include it in a compilation is not possible ?

edit: and in your diagrams, the field of view in the first one does not account for the entire diameter of the globe

In that first diagram, Can the theoretical observer see the "entire" diameter of the globe ? No.

He can only see the part of the globe that is visible to him. So to measure the apparent size of the globe for this observer, I must only take into account the part of the globe that is visible to him. If you have a different way of measuring the apparent size of an object, I'm curious to know what it is.

DUUUUUUDE...lols....OK...

Would you agree that with both the 2002 and the 2012 NASA photos, that the camera had a field of view large enough to see the entire circumference and diameter of the globe? That earth, in both the 2002 and 2012 photos, is entirely within the frame of the photo, just as the object I used was entirely in the frames of the 3", 4" and 5" shots I took of it?

If you agree to that, would you agree that the distance from the camera to the earth was the same in both NASA photos, OR that zoom was used so that earth took up the same amount of the frame in each photo. That their scale is the same in both photos?

And if you agree to that, would you agree that the A and B points are visible (disregarding the cloud coverage) in both photos?

If you agree to all that...ask yourself "Why is the line from A to B on the 2002 photo so different than the line from A to B in the 2012 photo?"

If the scale of the globe is the same in both photos then why is the scale of NA not the same in both photos?

Would you agree that with both the 2002 and the 2012 NASA photos, that the camera had a field of view large enough to see the entire circumference and diameter of the globe?

Yes.

That earth, in both the 2002 and 2012 photos, is entirely within the frame of the photo, just as the object I used was entirely in the frames of the 3", 4" and 5" shots I took of it?

Yes.

If you agree to that, would you agree that the distance from the camera to the earth was the same in both NASA photos, OR that zoom was used so that earth took up the same amount of the frame in each photo.

Yes.

That their scale is the same in both photos?

The scale of the "outer circle" is the same, yes.

And if you agree to that, would you agree that the A and B points are visible (disregarding the cloud coverage) in both photos?

Yes.

If you agree to all that...ask yourself "Why is the line from A to B on the 2002 photo so different than the line from A to B in the 2012 photo?"

Because the line from A to B is not at the same distance from the camera than the outer circle of the globe. Just to be sure that we agree on something : Zooming is not equivalent as getting closer. Any photographer can tell you that ...

Very approximate numerical application.

Setting 1 : The Camera is 10000km from the center of the Earth, just above the middle point of the line AB. Then the camera is at 3600 km from the surface of the Earth. Correct ?

Let's say that in this setting the apparent size of Earth is E and the apparent size of the line AB is L.

Setting 2 : The camera is now at 20000km from the center of the globe, same zoom as setting 1. The globe appears 2 times smaller on the picture, right ? So the apparent size of the Earth is now E/2

But now it is also 13600km from the surface of the Earth. So while the distance to the center of the Earth was multiplied by 2, the distance to the surface was multiplied by 3.77. So the apparent size of the line AB is L/3.77.

Setting 3 . Camera at 20000km but with a 2x zoom. The Earth has now an apparent size of (E/2)x2 = E. The same apparent size as in setting 1. The line has now an apparent size of (L/3.77)x2 = 1.88xL

Hence between setting 1 and setting 3, the Earth looks the same size, the line AB does not. I don't know how to make it simpler.

Let's say that in this setting the apparent size of Earth is E and the apparent size of the line AB is L.

ok...which one of the nasa "photos" is the "apparent view of the earth" 2002 or 2012?

I apologize. I used the expression "apparent size" when I should have said "size of the Earth on the picture". I edited my comment accordingly. Can you please read again the comment now that the wording is correct ?

lol, ok...so which one of the nasa "photos" is the photo that is depicted in "setting 1"? 2002 or 2012?

Which one of the nasa "photos" is the photo that is depicted in "setting 3"? 2002 or 2012?

Well, in the theoretical computations, the line AB has a much smaller size on the picture with setting 3 than on the picture with setting 1.

So Setting 1 would give a photo like the 2012 one and Setting 3 would give a photo like to the 2002 one.

(Note that the simple settings that I chose to illustrate my computations are not the settings required to obtain NASA photos. The actual settings would be Setting 1 : 11687km from the center of the Earth, no zoom. Setting 2 : 80562km, zoom 7.28x, as described here )

ok lemme see If I got this straight.....

You are saying that the 2012 photo was taken with no zoom, and taken from a distance great enough to capture the entire circumference of the globe in the frame.

And you are also saying that the 2002 photo was taken at a much greater distance than that of the 2012 photo, and that the camera was zoomed in great enough to make the circumference of the globe in the 2002 photo match that of the circumference of the globe in the 2012 photo.

And you are also saying that the same zoom used in the 2002 photo did not increase the size of the NA continent in the 2002 photo to match that of the NA continent in the 2012 photo, because the NA continent is at a lesser distance from the camera than the circumference of the globe is from the camera.

Have I got all that right?

First, I would like to note that I'm not claiming anything about the reality of the actual pictures (I cannot prove in any way that these pictures are "real", and they probably aren't). I'm saying that the settings for a theoretical globe Earth would produce pictures similar to the ones released by NASA.

That being said, I will answer your questions precisely.

You are saying that the 2012 photo was taken with no zoom, and taken from a distance great enough to capture the entire circumference of the globe in the frame.

Yes.

And you are also saying that the 2002 photo was taken at a much greater distance than that of the 2012 photo, and that the camera was zoomed in great enough to make the circumference of the globe in the 2002 photo match that of the circumference of the globe in the 2012 photo.

Yes.

And you are also saying that the same zoom used in the 2002 photo did not increase the size of the NA continent in the 2002 photo to match that of the NA continent in the 2012 photo, because the NA continent is at a lesser distance from the camera than the circumference of the globe is from the camera.

Your sentence is slightly ambiguous and I'm not exactly sure that you got it right. So let me reformulate and precise your sentence a little bit, and you can tell me if that was what you meant.

The zoom used in the 2002 photo did not increase the size of the NA continent in the 2002 photo enough to match that of the NA continent in the 2012 photo. The reason is that between the 2002 location and the 2012 location, the distance to the NA continent was multiplied by a bigger amount than the distance to the circumference of the globe, because the the NA continent is at a lesser distance from the camera than the circumference of the globe is from the camera.

To be more precise, if a 7.2X zoom was used on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference was multiplied by 7.2 and the size of the NA continent was also multiplied by 7.2 (that's what a zoom does). However, between the 2012 location and the 2002 location, the distance to the NA continent was multiplied by 13 and not by 7.2. So a 13X zoom would have been necessary to increase the size of the NA continent in the 2002 photo to match that of the 2012 photo.

Is that what you meant ?

(I cannot prove in any way that these pictures are "real", and they probably aren't)

Why do you say that they probably aren't?

To be more precise, if a 7.2X zoom was used on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference was multiplied by 7.2 and the size of the NA continent was also multiplied by 7.2 (that's what a zoom does)

agreed.

However, between the 2012 location and the 2002 location, the distance to the NA continent was multiplied by 13 and not by 7.2. So a 13X zoom would have been necessary to increase the size of the NA continent in the 2002 photo to match that of the 2012 photo.

ok, but then wouldn't we be in the same situation as stated above? " To be more precise, if a 7.2X 13x zoom was used on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference was multiplied by 13 and the size of the NA continent was also multiplied by 13 (that's what a zoom does)"

Why do you say that they probably aren't?

Because most NASA pictures are composite. But this is completely unrelated to the problem.

ok, but then wouldn't we be in the same situation as stated above? " To be more precise, if a 7.2X 13x zoom was used on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference was multiplied by 13 and the size of the NA continent was also multiplied by 13 (that's what a zoom does)"

Yes, but if you multiply the size of the circumference by 13 on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference in the 2002 photo would not match the size of the circumference in the 2012 photo.

Let me reformulate the same argument once again in yet another way :

Zooming increase the size of everything in a picture by a common ratio (7.2 for example). We seem to agree on that, and that's good.

Getting further decreases the size of everything in a picture by a ratio depending on the initial distance between the camera and the object. The initial distance between the camera and the NA continent is not the same as the initial distance between the camera and the circumference, so the ratios are different for NA and for the circumference. In my exemple, it is 13 for the NA continent and 7.2 for the circumference.

Because most NASA pictures are composite. But this is completely unrelated to the problem.

I will go as far as to say ALL of them are composite, which is a problem within itself....

Yes, but if you multiply the size of the circumference by 13 on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference in the 2002 photo would not match the size of the circumference in the 2012 photo.

But THEY DO MATCH. So how do they match? This is like the whole reason I'm having this conversation with you...

I will go as far as to say ALL of them are composite, which is a problem within itself....

Perhaps. But as I said, this is completely unrelated to the problem we are discussing.

But THEY DO MATCH. So how do they match? This is like the whole reason I'm having this conversation with you...

When the camera got from the 2012 to the 2002 location, the distance from the camera to the circumference was multiplied by 7.2. So the size of the circumference on the two pictures do match thanks to the 7.2x zoom that was used on the 2002 picture.

However, the distance from the camera to the NA continent was multiplied by 13. If a 13x zoom had been used from the same location, the size of the NA continent would match, but the size of the circumference would not match anymore.

But you just got finished telling me...

To be more precise, if a 7.2X zoom was used on the 2002 photo, then the size of the circumference was multiplied by 7.2 and the size of the NA continent was also multiplied by 7.2 (that's what a zoom does)

so if the 2002 camera was at the same distance as the 2012 camera, and didn't use zoom, the photos would be identical...

And then you say that the 2002 camera moves further back and uses zoom to increase both the circumference and NA continent by 7.2, and by doing so the circumference of the globes are once again equal...but the NA continents are no longer equal....

That's like telling me that you could take a picture of some guys head and face at distance x, then move back to distance y, use zoom to make the size of the guys head identical in both photos, but the dudes eyes and mouth are way smaller compared to his head in photo y? Do you actually think this happens in reality? I mean unless you are right up on someone, and using a fish eye..that isn't going to happen...and I dare say that it will never happen to the degree in which we see in the 2002/2012 nasa "photos"...so i see no reason why it should happen in "space" when viewing the "globe" earth

But Honestly man...I think I'm done going around in circles with you, at least on this point.

After skimming through your post history, half of me just thinks you debate flat earth for a living ( on a troll sub no less)...so you are either the active suppression I have discussed with others before, or you are just so deeply entrenched in the theoretical dogma, that you honestly believe that a math equation could make anything a physical, observable reality...

Regardless...its been an experience talking with you. Take care.

o/

so if the 2002 camera was at the same distance as the 2012 camera, and didn't use zoom, the photos would be identical...

Yes. That's kind of obvious.

And then you say that the 2002 camera moves further back and uses zoom to increase both the circumference and NA continent by 7.2, and by doing so the circumference of the globes are once again equal...but the NA continents are no longer equal....

Yes, that's the counter-intuitive part.

That's like telling me that you could take a picture of some guys head and face at distance x, then move back to distance y, use zoom to make the size of the guys head identical in both photos, but the dudes eyes and mouth are way smaller compared to his head in photo y? Do you actually think this happens in reality?

Yes. That's why the very first comment that I posted to answer you was this. Remember ?

I mean unless you are right up on someone, and using a fish eye..that isn't going to happen.

The link above is clearly saying that the lens used are NOT fish-eye lenses. This is a photographer's blog, he has absolutely no reason to lie about this. It's his job to understand the effect of moving forward/backward and zooming.

and I dare say that it will never happen to the degree in which we see in the 2002/2012 nasa "photos"...

Well, you can measure the size of his nose in the first and last picture. Tell me what you think.

But Honestly man...I think I'm done going around in circles with you, at least on this point.

So after I demonstrated the effect in real life, with faces from a photographer's blog, with an actual globe in my home, with pictures that you took yourself, with a diagram, with precise mathematical computations, you still don't believe me ? You prefer to use your intuition instead a professional photographer's blog ?

Honestly, it seems to me that you are so afraid of admitting that you simply didn't know about this effect, that you will avoid looking at the problem in a neutral way, or perform the experiments that I told you (with a basketball and not a small 1" ball).

After skimming through your post history, half of me just thinks you debate flat earth for a living ( on a troll sub no less)...so you are either the active suppression I have discussed with others before,

What I do in the rest of my life has absolutely no relation to the correctness of my arguments in this thread.

What you are doing is called an "ad hominem" attack. It's usually used when you cannot refute the arguments of your "opponent" ...

or you are just so deeply entrenched in the theoretical dogma, that you honestly believe that a math equation could make anything a physical, observable reality...

It's dishonest of you to reduce my arguments to a theoretical math equation.

I started showing you the physical observable reality with a globe in my home. You believed that I didn't control the variables. I also gave you precise diagrams to explain the situation. You didn't understand the diagram. That's why I used math. I genuinely thought that you were intelligent enough to understand the simple maths that I used.

I was wrong obviously.

Regardless...its been an experience talking with you. Take care.

I think the same. But I really thought you were capable to understand this ... otherwise I would not have wasted so much time on this.

Last advice : Ask a professional photographer.

Yes. That's why the very first comment that I posted to answer you was this. Remember ?

saw that coming. Those are 5 different lenses at 5 different distances....

So what ? NASA cannot use different lenses ?

Yeah man...they can. Feel free to show me the two lenses that gave the 2 same yet different results we saw in the 2012 and 2002 pics. Then tell me why they would claim both as accurate depictions of what earth looks like. Then tell me why after all this time they haven't taken one legitimate photo of the entirety of the earth....etc etc etc....

goodnight o/

I'm speechless.

I thought that I made it pretty cleat that I don't carr about NASA. I'm not using their pictures as proof for anything. For all I know, the NASA pictures could be paintings done by an artist in their basement.

The only question that I'm interested about in this discussion is "would it be possible to take two pictures of the same globe that would look like the 2002 and the 2012 NASA photos ?".

I gave you possible settings where the only changes are the distance and the zoom. I don't claim that these were the actual settings. I don't claim that NASA didn't use different lens, and once again it does not prove that the NASA picture are fake.

It only proves that it is theoretically possible to take such pictures.

How does the flat earth model explain lunar eclipses and at the rate they happen. Also compaired those numbers to the solar eclipse model.

I'm tickled that you are following along with this discussion but I know for a fact that the earth is not the cause of the lunar phases because this very day, I witnessed and recorded a half moon and the sun in the sky at the same time, shortly after mid day...which means the sun had direct line of sight with the moon...which means the earth was not in between the sun and the moon....which means the earth was not the cause of the moons half phase.

Wait a second. Do you think that, in the round earth model, when the moon is half full that the shadow if the earth is causing it?

The moon was like this in the sky...is this a half or quarter moon?

That shadow you see on the moon in this picture and what you saw today is NOT caused by the earth. That shadow is caused by the sun only. During all LUNAR eclipses the moon is 100% FULL. While the sun is DIRECTLY behind the earth it casts a shadow on the moon. The phases of the moon and the LUNAR and SOLAR eclipae cycles are two very different things.

https://youtu.be/D5rm0T_33Tg

How does the flat earth model explain a LUNAR eclipse? A random shadow covers the moon EXACTLY at the same time the sun would be behind the earth (on average 3 times a year)? What causes this shadow and why does it coorespond with the sun being DIRECTLY behind the earth during a lunar eclipse

EDIT : Could you take another picture from a 2" distance ?

Sure... like i said, image will be cut off by the frame but gimme a few.

see my edit to last comment and also tell me what the baseline is. Meaning, what is the actual measurement of the globe/Africa in physical reality and how is that interpreted into pixels?

The globe is still 40cm in diameter. The width of Africa is roughly 23cm.

The first picture was taken from about 25/30 cm of the surface of the globe. The last one is taken from about 3m of the surface of the globe.

I don't understand your question about pixels.

also...r/flatearth is a troll sub (disinfo)...99% of users there do not believe in flat earth....they are just fucking with you so you lump people like me into the same group as them...so don;t expect any actual debate there ;)

I don't understand what this has to do with our conversation. I don't want to talk about the shape of the Earth.

I want to talk about what happens when you take pictures of a sphere from different locations.

That is entirely false. The oblate spheroid model was not invented by Tyson. It has been around since at least mid 20th century, and the deviation from being truely spherical is one third of one percent. 13 miles!

I didn't say he invented it...i said he pulled it out of his ass, and by the looks of the wiki, sources saying that" the point on the surface farthest from Earth's center of mass is the summit of the equatorial Chimborazo volcano in Ecuador(6,263.47 m in elevation)" and not Everest(7,200 meters in elevation), were all written in 200-2012, so technically it would be 21'st century.

Nothing of what you said changes the fact that TPTB give us multiple different answers to the same question, and that curvature would be measurable via experimentation in physical reality. And when said experiments are conducted, curvature is not found.

I mean ffs, they will show you this and this and tell you that both are accurately showing the shape of the earth....

they
are
liars....

Good goy.

Eeh where to begin with this one!

but doesn’t seem weird that you can fly from bottom of South America to Cape Town straight across?

7800km, any 767 extended range can do that easily. So.. weird? not particularly.

That's not true, people knew hundreds of years before Columbus that the Earth was round. They even had a pretty close idea of it's size, however they thought it was a huge ocean instead of N America. Columbus basically thought they were wrong and the Earth / ocean was smaller, so sailing to asia around the globe should be possible. He was wrong about it being smaller, and happened to find a continent where the huge ocean was thought to be.

That's a common misconception related to the mythologizing of Columbus; humans have known the earth was round for thousands of years, probably starting with early sailors who saw distant objects dip below the horizon. Copernicus is famous for his theory that the earth orbits the sun, not that the earth is round.

Make that 2500 ish years. That lie was invented a few hundred years ago yo make the previous generations seem superstitious

So what you're saying is, they lie to us.

Firstly what are you trying to say by that?

Secondly you don't have to beliege in a global conspiracy to believe that people can lie to make themselves seem superior..

Antarctica is a the worlds largest desert, a frozen one. Water may be what appears but the land is permanent frost as most arctic zones. Keep in mind the world is gradually shifting north so there is no true North Pole, take that into consideration. There is no ice Wall once you get to Antarctica you just want into an endless endeavor of white. If what admiral Byrd said is true there might be volcanic activity to justify such claims to keep areas some what habitable. Weird shit could be true. Earth is not flat tho, it’s more oval like a cosmic egg.

It's within a 1% of being a perfect sphere IIRC

1958 Encyclopedia Americana was published prior to the Antarctica treaty and states that a "dome" was discovered over the inland areas at 13,000 feet. The standard rebuttal is that they were referring to a type of mountain, but the encyclopedia entry does not give me that impression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_A

Yes, wikipedia is commonly used to give TPTB's response. Does not make it truth.

I suppose Admiral Byrd also talking about it is also a lie to you?

https://imgur.com/a/EktN3

Or definitions of geological features?

http://www.radford.edu/jtso/GeologyofVirginia/Structures/GeologyOfVAStructures4-2g.html

Or Antarctic elevation maps?

https://imgur.com/a/oW1Ra

None of the Antarctica maps are real. It's a deception, I'm sorry if you can't see that.

So to sum up, you're right about this, and anyone who attempts to use evidence to contradict you is playing into the hands of a vaguely-defined cabal of illuminati.

Lol

So you refuse to believe photographic and anecdotal evidence, gotcha.

If the earth is flat then why doesn't the sun set at the same time for everyone?

The sun doesn't "set" on the flat earth model. The sun and the moon circumnavigate above the flat plane.

Yeah, I've always wondered about this: how does the flat earth model reconcile the fact that the sun does, in fact, set, and anyone can witness this any night? I think the idea is supposed to be that the sun gets farther away and we don't see its light at that distance, but that plainly is not what happens. It goes down below the horizon.

It only appears to go below the horizon due to refraction. Have you ever watched a chemtrail plane cross from one horizon to another? It will appear that it is climbing/diving at a steep angle as it gets closer to the horizon. The Sun appears to go up and down in a similar matter, yet both are at a fixed altitude.

Due to refraction? I'm sorry but that's plainly nonsense... If the sun is unobstructed but far, I shouldn't be able to see one half of it and not the other.

This is what flat earth always boils down to...a total disregard for how light actually works. You're jumping through hoops to explain sunsets. It's insane.

Not refraction... Perspective.

Not refraction... Perspective

I had a conversation with another user earlier this week on the topic....

It starts here

and continues here

Please pay attention to what I am calling a fact and what I am calling a theory. (all of your questions fall under the theory category, as explained in the conversation)

And FTR...I'm not going to get into another debate with any globetrotters atm. Witnessing your thought processes going around in circles trying to keep a grip on your false reality is exhausting, and I have reached my limit for the week. I'm pretty sure that everything you will ask or say was already covered in the above linked conversation, so refer to it if you feel the urge to ask me a question, preach from your pseudoscientific text books, or quote your priests Bill Nye, Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson...

o/

Did you tell them that you think dinosaurs "maybe" fake?

That is part of the conversation we had isn't it? I just linked the conversation didn't I? Your hard on for me is getting boring Gambino...

Get use to it. Its only just begun

lol...so gay

What is it 1995? Update your insaults.

The "what year is this" insult needs updating, mate. Be creative if you're going to dish it out.

Thanks for the tip

Not only are you a flat earther and dinosaur denier. You are a hateful homophobe. Really building your case here...

ಠ‿↼

Do you think homosexuals should have the right to marry?

Dinosaurs are fake as fuck. People will believe anything.

We can read for ourselves, thank you.

You're welcome

You wrote that what appears to our eyes as objects dipping below the horizon is really the "vanishing point". That doesn't make sense. There's no reason why the top of an object should still be visible when the bottom is not; they're the same distance from the viewer.

Furthermore, if ships on the horizon disappear because of the limitations of optics and not because of the curvature of the earth, then we can make a simple prediction: if there are two observers watching a distant ship, then the more-distant observer should always see the ship disappear first. So, for example, if you had one observer on the shore, and the other observer on the rooftop of a hotel by the shore, then the rooftop observer should see the ship disappear first. On a globe earth, we would make the opposite prediction: the observer at lower elevation, even though they're closer to the ship, will see it disappear below the horizon before the observer at high elevation. And that's exactly what happens.

I know from reading your linked threads that flat earth is an idea that you cling to pretty hard, but these things I've written are true. I hope you're still able to challenge your own convictions enough to recognize that your theory has some major holes.

then the more-distant observer should always see the ship disappear first

Not necessarily...

If the two people in question are at the same elevation, then the more distant viewer will always lose sight first...i mean, assuming their vision/optics/field of view are equal.

But you also have to consider the advantages/disadvantages of a birdseye/wormseye view...

As elevation increases so does your field of view, and as your elevation decreases, so does your field of view. We live in 3d space.

Its also important to remember that the horizon will raise to the height of the viewer, regardless of the elevation....that fact alone proves that their is no curvature.

IDK if you read the part already, but I included a rather simple experiment that pretty much anyone can do, that proves that their is no curvature....in case you are interested.

The fact that the horizon rises to the viewer proves the opposite of what you're saying. As the viewer's height increases, the viewer sees farther past the horizon around the curvature of the earth. If the earth was flat, you would be able to see the entire planet by flying in a plane. These are basic laws of geometry here.

The fact that the horizon rises to the viewer proves the opposite of what you're saying

Actually no...if the earth was globular, then as ones elevation increased, they would be able to see more and more curvature and they would have to look down to see the horizon....

If the earth was flat, you would be able to see the entire planet by flying in a plane

The higher you go up, the greater your field of view becomes...but you still have to consider the atmospheric conditions. Air, clouds, dust, smog etc etc.

Take a look at this video and before you say "i can see curvature!" understand that the curvature you see temporarily is caused by the lens of the camera....you will notice the curvature invert as well.

Actually no...if the earth was globular, then as ones elevation increased, they would be able to see more and more curvature and they would have to look down to see the horizon....

Did you ever try to compute how much "down" you would have to look on a theoretical 6400km radius globe ? It's not a very complicated computation, and then you can compare with some real life experiment.

Take a look at this video

The scale in the first diagram at 0:50 is clearly not to scale. The "high altitude" of the balloon is merely 36km. This is only 0.5% of the Earth Radius. This would be like looking at a basketball from a distance of less than 2mm ...

I'm not sure that I would be able to see curvature when I look at a basketball with my eye only 2mm from it ...

The scale in the first diagram at 0:50 is clearly not to scale

That's fair...but to also be fair, I think the creator was trying to illustrate the concept, not keep it to scale.

Regardless... The horizon stays at the eye level of the viewer at 0 elevation, or 100,000 ft....do you honestly believe you would still have a flat 360 degree horizon at 100k feet?

At 120,000' you are less than one third of one percent (0.0028%) of the earths diameter. With the naked eye the horizon would be in the same spot. Your logic is flawed

The horizon stays at the eye level of the viewer at 0 elevation, or 100,000 ft

I would like to point out that you can actually see the horizon getting lower as the balloon is getting higher, in the video you provided.

An explicit example : Just watch closely the horizon between 4:14 and 4:52. You can put a mark on your screen (or your mouse, or a ruler) if you want, and see that between 4:14 and 4:33, the camera is pretty stable and the horizon always stays above a certain point. At 4:33 there is a small edit in the video to skip to a point where the balloon is higher. And then from 4:34 to 4:52, the camera is still quite stable and the horizon is always 3mm below the mark.

This seems to be in complete contradiction with what you said.

do you honestly believe you would still have a flat 360 degree horizon at 100k feet at eye level?

I honestly can do the computation to see where the horizon should be compared to eye-level. And then I can honestly measure the video you provided to see if it fits.

If you are at 100k feet above a 3959 miles sphere, then the horizon is at a distance of 387 miles. So the angle at which I should look down is arcsin(200k feet / 3959 miles) = 5.6° (do a diagram if you need)

The typical wide-angle camera has a vertical Field of View of roughly 50°. (I don't have the specifics for the camera used in this footage, so I'm using a relatively neutral value). If the eye-level is in the middle of the shot, then 5.6° below is roughly 10% of the total height below the center of the shot.

I actually measured with a ruler the video. The height of the video on my screen is 13.3cm, so the center is at 6.66cm. Theoretically, the horizon should be 1.33cm below the 6.65cm mark. Which is around 5.33 cm from the bottom of the screen.

Between 4:35 and 4:50 (it's almost at its highest point and the camera is stable), the horizon appears between 5.2 and 5.5 cm from the bottom. Honestly, it's almost too good to be true, I didn't expect it to fit so well.

An explicit example : Just watch closely the horizon between 4:14 and 4:52.

dude, there are scene transitions and the camera is moving side to side as, front to back.

Ok..if you are so sure there is curvature...go conduct the experiment that was detailed in the conversation I linked. That you can see the lack there of with your own eyes and have to accept the reality of the situation...unless of course you believe that you somehow can see through solid earth.

Both the rooftop and beachside observer have an unobstructed view of the ocean. The rooftop observer only has an increased field of view on a globe earth, because he can see farther over the curve. On a flat earth, field of view should only be restricted by distance -- and the rooftop observer is farther than the sea level observer.

Again, this is factual. If what you said before is correct -- that objects disappearing on the horizon is a function of optics and distance -- then a more distant observer should see the object vanish first, regardless of their field of view. This is based on your own suppositions.

On a flat earth, field of view should only be restricted by distance

I'm sorry, but that is simply not correct. We still live in a 3 dimensional space.

If what you said before is correct -- that objects disappearing on the horizon is a function of optics and distance --

I mean i guess I could have been more specific...but I just assumed people understood the advantages of having a birds eye view...

Ordinarily the advantage of a bird's eye view is lack of obstruction. But a beachside observer of a distant ship on a flat earth has no obstruction.

Put another way: you said objects disappear on the horizon because optics are limited by distance. You referred to the vanishing point. But you now are acknowledging that a more distant observer can see the object if their elevation is greater. That means the vanishing point must not be the limiting factor; it must be something else. So which is it?

But you now are acknowledging that a more distant observer can see the object if their elevation is greater.

Correct...again, because I assumed people understood that a birds eye /worms eye (elevation) view changed ones perspective, and hence, changed ones vanishing point.

That means the vanishing point must not be the limiting factor

It is the factor, but two people at different elevations have different points of perspective, and a different vanishing point. We live in 3D...so there are 3 dimensions to consider when determining the vanishing point...

I got to go ... but go ahead and watch the links that were provided in the conversation if you have more questions..Ive already engaged people more that I planned. Thanks for not being a douche. o/

You're saying that elevation increases an observer's maximum visual distance. This is clearly not true. We can prove it by having our beachside and rooftop observers read an eye chart. (They can be the same person, to eliminate differences in visual ability.) The sea level observer, who is closer to the chart, will score better than the rooftop observer.

You're using terms like "points of perspective" and "vanishing point", and I think this is obscuring a very simple concept: if objects disappear due to our visual limitations over distance, then a more distant observer should not see an object that is too far for a nearer observer. It could not be simpler. If your theory is sound there should be no need for any optical illusions to explain this away. Being higher up actually increases the distance... absent obstructions this should never be an advantage.

honestly man, i got to go to bed...i will come back to this after i get some sleep

You are waisting your time trust me

Nobody in the history of the internet had been more right

You're saying that elevation increases an observer's maximum visual distance. This is clearly not true.

I respectfully disagree...

We can prove it by having our beachside and rooftop observers read an eye chart. (They can be the same person, to eliminate differences in visual ability.) The sea level observer, who is closer to the chart, will score better than the rooftop observer.

lol...well in that case the angle of the chart would come into play... honestly a silly argument.

It could not be simpler. If your theory is sound there should be no need for any optical illusions to explain this away. Being higher up actually increases the distance... absent obstructions this should never be an advantage.

The end of that paragraph doesn't make any sense to me. Could you rephrase please?

Angle the eye chart towards the observer. The distant, elevated observer will still do worse than the nearer ground-level one. I don't know why you would think our experiment wouldn't correct for that.

To rephrase that paragraph: the benefit of high elevation is that you can see over things, like trees or buildings. If there are no trees or buildings, then there is no benefit to high elevation. There's only increased distance. There's nothing in the science of optics to suggest otherwise.

Well again, its a silly experiment. The distance different obviously plays a factor. And though it is technically a 3d object, letters on a chart, and even the chart itself has so little of one dimension that most people will usually call it a 2d object. Its a much different scenario than gazing out at an obvious 3d object at a distance.

If there are no trees or buildings, then there is no benefit to high elevation.

I honestly don't know how you could honestly believe that...thats a borderline straw man argument seeing as there is always going to be trees, buildings or some other obstruction...but even if there wasn't, the higher you got, you would be able to see your field of view increasing. One has a different point of view at different elevations. Anyone who has ever looked from the same horizontal distance at a low and high elevation will confirm this.

I feel like this has got a bit off topic so I am gonna close by again encouraging you to perform the experiment detailed in my conversation links for yourself.

Take care o/

It's not a straw man... on the beach, looking out at the ocean, there are no trees or buildings to obstruct your view.

Your field of view increases with elevation because the earth is a globe. You can see farther over the curve in every direction. On a flat earth this is not the case... That's the whole point. Flatness of the distant object changes nothing; and you still haven't explained why the bottom of the object gets obscured by the horizon before the top.

All of these questions have a simple answer: the earth is round. You're clinging with all your strength to a theory that does not hold up to even minimal scrutiny.

I'm going to be honest with you: I haven't gone through your links with enough patience to find the experiment you keep mentioning. I already know the gist: you're going to fundamentally misunderstand some basic science, apply it incorrectly, and declare victory. There's no way to mince words on this: you have deceived yourself. You need to step out of your own head and understand your biases. You can still be religious on a globe. A round earth does not preclude the existence of a supreme being.

I've made my case, you have made yours. If you are correct you should be able to get the opposite results from the experiment as so many others have got. if you are so confident, then go do the experiment for yourself. Just keep it an honest and objective experiment and I have no doubt that you will get the results that you would expect if the earth was "flat" (not a globe).

Take care o/

Your experiment appears to involve having people stand far apart on flat terrain. Since flat terrain is hard to find, it's much easier to watch ships at sea... and they do, indeed, dip below the horizon. So, the earth is round.

You can find videos of this phenomenon online... no need to even leave your house.

Your experiment appears to involve having people stand far apart on flat terrain. Since flat terrain is hard to find, it's much easier to watch ships at sea... and they do, indeed, dip below the horizon. So, the earth is round.

You can find videos of this phenomenon online... no need to even leave your house.

Your experiment appears to involve having people stand far apart on flat terrain. Since flat terrain is hard to find, it's much easier to watch ships at sea... and they do, indeed, dip below the horizon. So, the earth is round.

You can find videos of this phenomenon online... no need to even leave your house.

Your experiment appears to involve having people stand far apart on flat terrain. Since flat terrain is hard to find, it's much easier to watch ships at sea.

Reread what i wrote about the experiment.

And for the record, MANY people have done and recorded said experiment on land and sea...all those who kept the experiment fair proved there was no curvature...but there are many who use cheats to get the results that they want and they are quite easy to spot, as they usually have wildly different result because they cheat in a multitude of ways.

You can find videos of this phenomenon online... no need to even leave your house.

I get that...and even though i will offer people videos showing fair experiments I always tell them to go do it for themselves because if you control the experiment, you know or should know, if its kept objective...so there is no doubt left in your mind.

Edit: sorry for the triple reply

no worries.

I really liked your posts. I enjoy your calm cool and collected manner. Flat Earth truth seekers tend to be like that while explaining, while those questioning are always mocking uncontrollably. I'm not a flat earther persay, but I do believe we are not taught the truth and my mind is open to all of the possibilities...not just in the shape of the earth. Cheers and Godspeed.

Thank you for saying so.

Some musings about flat earthism. In a flat earth model, when asteroids hit earth, where do they come from? How do they get through the "firmament" If they can go through it, why can't rockets or spaceships or satellites?

In a flat earth, what is at the "edge" of the world? What woudl you see if you were there? Why aren't there photographs?

Pursuant to the previous question, If there were such photographs under what pretenses would flat earthers expect anyone to believe them, when flat earthers flatly reject all of the numerous videos and photos of earth taken from space?

How can flat earthers explain the travel distance of flights that take place at the far ends of the south pole? (Only response I have ever seen is that there are no intercontinental flights that far south, which was proven totally false.)

To any flat earthers, who wish to respond, please ignore for a moment that you believe we can't go to space and there is no space flight and answer, if you were taken there by some means and could see, with your own eyes from space, that the earth was in fact round, would you believe it, and accept it? If so, please express what sort of personal beliefs (besides flat earthism) that this would impact for you.

Fuck you shill, we all know why you're posting this.

You're either a shill or a retard.

Removed. Rule 10.

Removed. Rule 10.

What is it 1995? Update your insaults.

Not only are you a flat earther and dinosaur denier. You are a hateful homophobe. Really building your case here...

ok, I took some measurements...think they are pretty close...within a few pixels anyways. I have no idea how to calculate margin for error, so I'll let you do that. Check my math too.

Your math seems correct (I only checked the first and last picture for the horizontal measurements). However, I took the "yoplait" sign for a reason . It's quite close from the middle of the screen, and hence the distance between the yoplait sign and the camera is as small as possible in the first shot. That's also why I asked for the 2" shot. The effect is much more pronounced at small distances (typically distances that are smaller than the radius of the sphere/cylinder)

But do we at least agree that the ratio did change between the 2" shot and the 5" shot ?