If you still think the earth is flat, please explain how this was filmed, and how satellites stay in orbit above a flat earth.
It's a very pretty video. From two minutes in one assumes he is using some sort fish eye lens to give the inside of the capsule some weird distortion effect, hmm to make it look round. Video cameras I have used have never given that effect.
The Suez canal isn't straight flat for 100 miles. Where do you get this stuff from?
But if it had been, they'd have had to allow for the curvature of the Earth by... er... allowing for the curvature of the Earth. Which seems a rather "circular" argument.
Meanwhile...
I have this vague memory of hearing a tale the Sir Isaac Newton used a water channel that does run straight for some considerable distance (the New Bedford River / Hundred Foot Drain in the Fens) to measure the radius of the Earth. The story goes that he had a set of poles made with marks on them a known distance apart, and sent helpers off down the channel to position the poles with the lower mark at water level and the upper mark, therefore, a known distance above the water. He then used a telescope to observe that the line between the upper marks on two poles passed some distance below the corresponding mark on a pole placed halfway between them.
Now, this sounded plausible at the time, and the experiment could certainly be done these days (probably with the refinement of using a laser to establish a straight line). The doubt that's crept in to my mind is whether, back in the 17th century, telescopes with sufficient resolution to make sufficiently accurate measurements would have been available. And an (admittedly quick) session of poking around the internet turns up nothing to support the story.
So, true? An experiment performed by someone else rather later that's become associated with Isaac Newton over time? Or completely made up?
It's a very pretty video. From two minutes in one assumes he is using some sort fish eye lens to give the inside of the capsule some weird distortion effect, hmm to make it look round. Video cameras I have used have never given that effect.
Apart from the small detail that several times solar panels are shown with straight edges in the same shot as a curved earth, there is the much bigger question you didn't answer; how do satellites orbit a flat earth?
Apart from the small detail that several times solar panels are shown with straight edges in the same shot as a curved earth, there is the much bigger question you didn't answer; how do satellites orbit a flat earth?
I cannot answer that, the same as I cannot answer how satellites orbit a spherical earth.
But if it had been, they'd have had to allow for the curvature of the Earth by... er... allowing for the curvature of the Earth. Which seems a rather "circular" argument.
Meanwhile...
I have this vague memory of hearing a tale the Sir Isaac Newton used a water channel that does run straight for some considerable distance (the New Bedford River / Hundred Foot Drain in the Fens) to measure the radius of the Earth. The story goes that he had a set of poles made with marks on them a known distance apart, and sent helpers off down the channel to position the poles with the lower mark at water level and the upper mark, therefore, a known distance above the water. He then used a telescope to observe that the line between the upper marks on two poles passed some distance below the corresponding mark on a pole placed halfway between them.
Now, this sounded plausible at the time, and the experiment could certainly be done these days (probably with the refinement of using a laser to establish a straight line). The doubt that's crept in to my mind is whether, back in the 17th century, telescopes with sufficient resolution to make sufficiently accurate measurements would have been available. And an (admittedly quick) session of poking around the internet turns up nothing to support the story.
So, true? An experiment performed by someone else rather later that's become associated with Isaac Newton over time? Or completely made up?
Newton seems to have played a big part in proving the world is an oblate sphere, not a perfect sphere, but I also can't find any details.
On this site they also show photos taken by astronauts, which are pretty good quality. So why can't they just take a snap of the Earth without having to fiddle with it.
Well, it obviously depends on what your images are trying to show. If you want an image of the Earth which excludes clouds, for example, then you have no option but to make a composite image. I'm not sure why you regard that as tantamount to fakery. NASA are in the business of producing images which are impressive and/or useful. They aren't trying to produce images to persuade people who doubt long-established scientific truths. Images of a cloudy Earth are available.
These images show the earth as being round, but when I look at the horizon I see it as flat. Some would say as the earth is so large you cannot see the curvature, but for every mile the earth curves 8 inches.
I only recently started to look into this and doing the usual youtube watching which really does not help. So I am still none the wiser, NASA and billions of others say the Earth is a sphere, a small few say it is not. My eyes kinda tell me it's flat when I look at the horizon, even when 36,000 feet in an plane it's still flat.
A good start would be to ask yourself how far away the horizon actually is. It's probably not as far as you think. For an average height person, the answer is about 3 miles (simple application of Pythagoras' theorem). Now of course the horizon is not flat, so the question is - should you be able to perceive the curvature of the horizon at that distance? And the answer is "no, you should not". The more interesting question is to ask at what height you ought to be able to see it, and the answer turns out to be quite complicated and not entirely certain. But to be sure, you want to be above about 50,000 ft - which is above the range of all currently operating commercial airliners. Many images purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are in fact the result of barrel distortion in the camera lens!
Well, it obviously depends on what your images are trying to show. If you want an image of the Earth which excludes clouds, for example, then you have no option but to make a composite image. I'm not sure why you regard that as tantamount to fakery. NASA are in the business of producing images which are impressive and/or useful. They aren't trying to produce images to persuade people who doubt long-established scientific truths. Images of a cloudy Earth are available.
A good start would be to ask yourself how far away the Horizon actually is. It's probably not as far as you think. For an average height person, the answer is about 3 miles (simple application of Pythagoras' theorem). Now of course the Horizon is not flat, so the question is - should you be able to perceive the curvature of the Horizon at that distance. And the answer is "no, you should not". The more interesting question is to ask at what height you ought to be able to see it, and the answer turns out to be quite complicated and not entirely certain. But to be sure, you want to be above about 50,000 ft - which is above the range of all currently operating commercial airliners. Many images purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are in fact the result of barrel distortion in the camera lens!
I'm sure I remember people that flew on Concorde reported that the sky was much darker blue and that they could see the curvature of the earth. Of course, the conspiracy could have included several thousand passengers lying to us, which is just as likely as many other "beliefs" of flat earthers.
I cannot answer that, the same as I cannot answer how satellites orbit a spherical earth.
Orbiting a spherical earth isn't complicated. Satellites go at constant speed around a sphere and end up above the same point that they started from about 88 minutes later. Much like swinging a weight on the end of a string.
How do you do that if the earth is flat? Do they disappear of one end of the flat earth and reappear at the other end? I don't see how they can return to their starting point otherwise. Is magic more believable than a spherical earth?
Orbiting a spherical earth isn't complicated. Satellites go at constant speed around a sphere and end up above the same point that they started from about 88 minutes later. Much like swinging a weight on the end of a string.
I'm not sure why you have chosen one very specific case of an orbit. The OP is confused enough already!
Orbital speed depends on the altitude. One way of looking at the problem is to realise that all satellites are in free fall under the gravitational pull of the Earth. What makes the difference between the satellite crashing to Earth and continuing to orbit, is that its speed ensures that the curved surface of the Earth is dropping away from the satellite just as fast as the satellite is falling towards it.
I'm not sure why you have chosen one very specific case of an orbit. The OP is confused enough already!
Orbital speed depends on the altitude. One way of looking at the problem is to realise that all satellites are in free fall under the gravitational pull of the Earth. What makes the difference between the satellite crashing to Earth and continuing to orbit, is that its speed ensures that the curved surface of the Earth is dropping away from the satellite just as fast as the satellite is falling towards it.
You're getting into far too much detail. The point is that by travelling around a sphere, satellites get back to where they started from. Something not possible if the world is flat.
I'm hoping the whole thread is a wind-up, but I've enjoyed reading around the subject.
There is enough evidence to show it is now a wind up. Meanmint has flown around the world and had to change their watch for local time. Calling someone during the night when it is their day or vice versa, watching live television in another country when it is their day and your night e.g Olympics, golf, tennis, football, cycling ... Or when there is breaking news from across the world with live reportage ... it's a complete wind up.
I'm hoping the whole thread is a wind-up, but I've enjoyed reading around the subject.
Me also. Interesting to note the horizon on an idealised spherical earth is only 3 miles distant. Our ancestors were ship builders, so per Bagov (post #3) the ships would appear mast first arriving, or disappear from the bottom first departing.
I've never actually seen this occur first hand, so I'd be interested to hear from anyone if this effect is visible with the naked eye.
Me also. Interesting to note the horizon on an idealised spherical earth is only 3 miles distant. Our ancestors were ship builders, so per Bagov (post #3) the ships would appear mast first arriving, or disappear from the bottom first departing.
I've never actually seen this occur first hand, so I'd be interested to hear from anyone if this effect is visible with the naked eye.
Same effect demonstrated viewing coastal town with skyscrapers from ships. E.g. a ship twenty miles from New York City will see skyscraper tops emerging from horizon.
FlatEarthers are just a group of trolls that like to irritate people to gain attention ... and it works. There are always a gullible bunch of do-gooders who want to try to explain it to them - but every explanation meets with a counter-argument. It's like trying to teach a young child who has zero interest in being taught - so they make a game up with teacher. There is a lesson to be learnt here because it is not just "obvious" trolls like Flat-Earthers (who purposely chose the most ridiculous notion to defend) - but other groups who get do-gooders to defend their "beliefs" as a human right. Disciples of the flat-earth - go forth and spread the truth. It's like those people that create corn circles then claim they saw the UFO land.
You guys win, you are far more intelligent than myself.
I have re-read my posts and at no time did I say I believed the earth to be flat, I was putting forward some simple questions that crop up when you google Flat Earth. Doing that then side tracks you to fake photos of the Earth and as I said the images from NASA are doctored to allow for different factors of the image.
In future I shall be very careful in any comments I make on these boards, more than likely not make any further comment as I have been labelled a wind up merchant and a troll.
You guys win, you are far more intelligent than myself.
I have re-read my posts and at no time did I say I believed the earth to be flat, I was putting forward some simple questions that crop up when you google Flat Earth. Doing that then side tracks you to fake photos of the Earth and as I said the images from NASA are doctored to allow for different factors of the image.
In future I shall be very careful in any comments I make on these boards, more than likely not make any further comment as I have been labelled a wind up merchant and a troll.
Presumably I won't be missed
Don't take it personally. I think everyone learnt something. It is easy to take things for granted and your questions made me read a lot of things to find evidence for things that I thought were common sense.
Please ask as many questions as you like. People volunteer to respond, no one is forcing us to visit this thread.
...........sound so daft to people that the earth was round too ? I mean anyone who looks to the sky can see the moon and sun are round shaped. I could understand if people assumed the earth might be flat, but why did it sound so ludicrous to people that it might be round ?
Also does anyone know when people realised lightning and thunder were just due to the weather and not angry Gods ?
I'm assuming that because they could see that the Sun and the Moon were round, they had no trouble in accepting that blatantly obvious fact. However, because all they'll have seen is flat (to a degree) ground on this planet, they wouldn't have been able to see that Earth was also round when seen from the same distance as the Moon.
Funny how now it's reckoned that the Universe is flat. Round planets in a flat Universe ;-)
Who knows? The observable universe is taken as being spherical. The global universe is unknown and could be flat or curved infinite or finite. It's hard to see how the actual Universe can be of any shape, except in the imagination, since one can never be outside it, or relate it to anything else.
Who knows? The observable universe is taken as being spherical. The global universe is unknown and could be flat or curved infinite or finite. It's hard to see how the actual Universe can be of any shape, except in the imagination, since one can never be outside it, or relate it to anything else.
I'm going to use my big toe as a referral point and say it's a squircle ...the Universe that is, not my big toe .
Comments
It's a very pretty video. From two minutes in one assumes he is using some sort fish eye lens to give the inside of the capsule some weird distortion effect, hmm to make it look round. Video cameras I have used have never given that effect.
But if it had been, they'd have had to allow for the curvature of the Earth by... er... allowing for the curvature of the Earth. Which seems a rather "circular" argument.
Meanwhile...
I have this vague memory of hearing a tale the Sir Isaac Newton used a water channel that does run straight for some considerable distance (the New Bedford River / Hundred Foot Drain in the Fens) to measure the radius of the Earth. The story goes that he had a set of poles made with marks on them a known distance apart, and sent helpers off down the channel to position the poles with the lower mark at water level and the upper mark, therefore, a known distance above the water. He then used a telescope to observe that the line between the upper marks on two poles passed some distance below the corresponding mark on a pole placed halfway between them.
Now, this sounded plausible at the time, and the experiment could certainly be done these days (probably with the refinement of using a laser to establish a straight line). The doubt that's crept in to my mind is whether, back in the 17th century, telescopes with sufficient resolution to make sufficiently accurate measurements would have been available. And an (admittedly quick) session of poking around the internet turns up nothing to support the story.
So, true? An experiment performed by someone else rather later that's become associated with Isaac Newton over time? Or completely made up?
Apart from the small detail that several times solar panels are shown with straight edges in the same shot as a curved earth, there is the much bigger question you didn't answer; how do satellites orbit a flat earth?
I cannot answer that, the same as I cannot answer how satellites orbit a spherical earth.
Newton seems to have played a big part in proving the world is an oblate sphere, not a perfect sphere, but I also can't find any details.
A good start would be to ask yourself how far away the horizon actually is. It's probably not as far as you think. For an average height person, the answer is about 3 miles (simple application of Pythagoras' theorem). Now of course the horizon is not flat, so the question is - should you be able to perceive the curvature of the horizon at that distance? And the answer is "no, you should not". The more interesting question is to ask at what height you ought to be able to see it, and the answer turns out to be quite complicated and not entirely certain. But to be sure, you want to be above about 50,000 ft - which is above the range of all currently operating commercial airliners. Many images purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are in fact the result of barrel distortion in the camera lens!
I'm sure I remember people that flew on Concorde reported that the sky was much darker blue and that they could see the curvature of the earth. Of course, the conspiracy could have included several thousand passengers lying to us, which is just as likely as many other "beliefs" of flat earthers.
Orbiting a spherical earth isn't complicated. Satellites go at constant speed around a sphere and end up above the same point that they started from about 88 minutes later. Much like swinging a weight on the end of a string.
How do you do that if the earth is flat? Do they disappear of one end of the flat earth and reappear at the other end? I don't see how they can return to their starting point otherwise. Is magic more believable than a spherical earth?
Orbital speed depends on the altitude. One way of looking at the problem is to realise that all satellites are in free fall under the gravitational pull of the Earth. What makes the difference between the satellite crashing to Earth and continuing to orbit, is that its speed ensures that the curved surface of the Earth is dropping away from the satellite just as fast as the satellite is falling towards it.
You're getting into far too much detail. The point is that by travelling around a sphere, satellites get back to where they started from. Something not possible if the world is flat.
I'm hoping the whole thread is a wind-up, but I've enjoyed reading around the subject.
Me also. Interesting to note the horizon on an idealised spherical earth is only 3 miles distant. Our ancestors were ship builders, so per Bagov (post #3) the ships would appear mast first arriving, or disappear from the bottom first departing.
I've never actually seen this occur first hand, so I'd be interested to hear from anyone if this effect is visible with the naked eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0h68YU0iQ
Same effect demonstrated viewing coastal town with skyscrapers from ships. E.g. a ship twenty miles from New York City will see skyscraper tops emerging from horizon.
FlatEarthers are just a group of trolls that like to irritate people to gain attention ... and it works. There are always a gullible bunch of do-gooders who want to try to explain it to them - but every explanation meets with a counter-argument. It's like trying to teach a young child who has zero interest in being taught - so they make a game up with teacher. There is a lesson to be learnt here because it is not just "obvious" trolls like Flat-Earthers (who purposely chose the most ridiculous notion to defend) - but other groups who get do-gooders to defend their "beliefs" as a human right. Disciples of the flat-earth - go forth and spread the truth. It's like those people that create corn circles then claim they saw the UFO land.
It looks like that boat sank to me. The earth is flat!
I have re-read my posts and at no time did I say I believed the earth to be flat, I was putting forward some simple questions that crop up when you google Flat Earth. Doing that then side tracks you to fake photos of the Earth and as I said the images from NASA are doctored to allow for different factors of the image.
In future I shall be very careful in any comments I make on these boards, more than likely not make any further comment as I have been labelled a wind up merchant and a troll.
Presumably I won't be missed
Don't take it personally. I think everyone learnt something. It is easy to take things for granted and your questions made me read a lot of things to find evidence for things that I thought were common sense.
Please ask as many questions as you like. People volunteer to respond, no one is forcing us to visit this thread.
I'm assuming that because they could see that the Sun and the Moon were round, they had no trouble in accepting that blatantly obvious fact. However, because all they'll have seen is flat (to a degree) ground on this planet, they wouldn't have been able to see that Earth was also round when seen from the same distance as the Moon.
Who knows? The observable universe is taken as being spherical. The global universe is unknown and could be flat or curved infinite or finite. It's hard to see how the actual Universe can be of any shape, except in the imagination, since one can never be outside it, or relate it to anything else.
How many dimensions are you assuming?
I'm going to use my big toe as a referral point and say it's a squircle ...the Universe that is, not my big toe .
I'll go for eleven. Don't ask me which one it's flat in.
I think you may be going out on a limb there. Flat footed as well with the squircle.