Earth is a ball

Pogue

If the Earth is flat, the horizon line would be much farther away. If you were in Chicago, you could see the Appalachian Mountains. That is why if you go higher up, you see farther. That is why when a boat goes over the horizon the bottom disappears before the top. Earth's curvature. Try this, you and a friend, one lay down, and another stand up, have a stopwatch, and each stop it when the sun disappears from view. The higher up you are, the more of Earth you can see. Try this, with a person a few kilometers away, when the sun sets for you, they would still see the sun (if they live behind you visa-versa if you live behind them). Also, the Earth produces a round shadow on the moon. Why have people and civilization been trying to deceive you for thousands of years? I come with more evidence tomorrow, it is late.

@SilverishGoldNova Why did you mark @Ampersand 's comment has a fallacy? From what I read, he did not commit any fallacy. 

Gooberry

SilverishGoldNova said:

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

I guess @Ampersand doesn't disagree his image is distorted eh. Now he's back to his fallacious and biased rambling @Erfisflat

It was actually only your image that was distorted because your spacial reasoning is very poor and you couldn't tell what the centre of the image was.

Don't feel embarrassed, it seems to be quite common among flat earthers. Erfistflat couldn't conceptualise how two people standing on different points of the earth would have a different view of the moon or how one object could be moving faster than another but still take longer to complete a circuit if that circuit was also bigger.

I have a feeling you're that Ramshitter guy from DDO.

Mate, your image has been refuted. It didn't take much effort. Again, a real image showing curvature from an independent source without a fish eye lense.

We have a few showing NONE, like this one

https://flaterthe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cam2.png

From 109,000 feet. We await your pitiful and fallacious dodge.

SilverishGoldNova said:

Ampersand said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

I guess @Ampersand doesn't disagree his image is distorted eh. Now he's back to his fallacious and biased rambling @Erfisflat

It was actually only your image that was distorted because your spacial reasoning is very poor and you couldn't tell what the centre of the image was.

Don't feel embarrassed, it seems to be quite common among flat earthers. Erfistflat couldn't conceptualise how two people standing on different points of the earth would have a different view of the moon or how one object could be moving faster than another but still take longer to complete a circuit if that circuit was also bigger.

I have a feeling you're that Ramshitter guy from DDO.

Mate, your image has been refuted. It didn't take much effort. Again, a real image showing curvature from an independent source without a fish eye lense.

We have a few showing NONE, like this one

https://flaterthe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cam2.png

From 109,000 feet. We await your pitiful and fallacious dodge.

How do you know this image isn’t using a fish eye lense, is unaltered and unphotoshopped?

Erfisflat

@Pogue

"If the Earth is flat, the horizon line would be much farther away."

What makes you say that? I mean, maybe If the earth was perfectly and mathematically flat, but there are tree, hills, atmosphere, perspective... You've made an irrational and illogical claim.

" If you were in Chicago, you could see the Appalachian Mountains. "

See above.

"That is why if you go higher up, you see farther."

Nope, when you get higher,  you're seeing over the tops of hills and trees, there is less atmosphere between you and what you're looking at.

 "That is why when a boat goes over the horizon the bottom disappears before the top."

Nope that is refraction. Have you seen the very many videos proving that boats do not go over any curvature?

" Earth's curvature. Try this, you and a friend, one lay down, and another stand up, have a stopwatch, and each stop it when the sun disappears from view. The higher up you are, the more of Earth you can see."

You're repeating yourself.

" Try this, with a person a few kilometers away, when the sun sets for you, they would still see the sun (if they live behind you visa-versa if you live behind them)."

And again.

" Also, the Earth produces a round shadow on the moon. "

That is an assumption.

"Why have people and civilization been trying to deceive you for thousands of years? I come with more evidence tomorrow, it is late."

They only "went to space" about 60 years ago. Before that, they were just misinterpreting data, as you are.

Erfisflat

I'm actually sick of talking about unverifiable imagery, and am glad pogue changed the subject back to verifiable information that seems to point to a spherical earth.  

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Excellent, if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Excellent, if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?

Are you asking me or telling me

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Excellent, if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?

Are you asking me or telling me

I am asking you, or at least asking you to confirm that what I’m saying is true.

Erfisflat

Does the floor appear spherical here? @goober

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Does the floor appear spherical here? @goober

The question I asked was if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines.

Your reply appears wholly unrelated.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

Excellent, if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?

Are you asking me or telling me

I am asking you, or at least asking you to confirm that what I’m saying is true.

It is false. All lenses will have some distortion, dependant on location.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Does the floor appear spherical here? @goober

The question I asked was if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines.

Your reply appears wholly unrelated.

Whether or not it is related is yet to be seen. Do you wish to carry on a conversation with me? Answer some of my questions if you're interested in my position. Continue to ignore them and I'll pay you the same respect.

Nope

Erfisflat Sense you said you are sick of taking about images maybe you can refute my argument about how the earths atmosphere getting thinner as you go higher is relevant to refraction. : )

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat Sense you said you are sick of taking about images maybe you can refute my argument about how the earths atmosphere getting thinner as you go higher is relevant to refraction. : )

I'll be glad to take a look at it, I don't think it is relevant though. The thinning doesn't get noticeable for a couple thousand feet.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat Sense you said you are sick of taking about images maybe you can refute my argument about how the earths atmosphere getting thinner as you go higher is relevant to refraction. : )

Actually that is false, I retract that statement. How is your point relevant?

Gooberry

@Erfisflat okay, let’s do 1:1

There is not enough visual image information to determine the geometry of the floor in your example. It could be flat, round, cubic or cylindrical, I couldn’t tell unless you showed me much more of the image. I can probably go so far as to say it’s not a sphere with a radius less than a few meters, but other than that: it’s not possible to confirm either way.

Now, I could use context specific information, knowing that it is a floor and all floors I have experienced at human level have been constucted to be relatively flat; but that is relying on an implicit context; not any specific information in the image. 

The same way, if you took a super-close up picture of a sphere: say a basketball, you could make it appear to look flat if you zoom in enough. If you then asked “does this basketball look flat”, it would be equally context based.

I’m certain that is not what you meant: as to try and make this argument would be confusing contextual data (what the image is of), with geometric data (what can be determined solely from the geometry in the image). Trying to make me answer geometry questions whilst giving me solely contextual data is a form of equivocation.

Okay, now feel free to answer my question, and ask me another.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat okay, let’s do 1:1

There is not enough visual image information to determine the geometry of the floor in your example. It could be flat, round, cubic or cylindrical, I couldn’t tell unless you showed me much more of the image. I can probably go so far as to say it’s not a sphere with a radius less than a few meters, but other than that: it’s not possible to confirm either way.

Now, I could use context specific information, knowing that it is a floor and all floors I have experienced at human level have been constucted to be relatively flat; but that is relying on an implicit context; not any specific information in the image. 

The same way, if you took a super-close up picture of a sphere: say a basketball, you could make it appear to look flat if you zoom in enough. If you then asked “does this basketball look flat”, it would be equally context based.

I’m certain that is not what you meant: as to try and make this argument would be confusing contextual data (what the image is of), with geometric data (what can be determined solely from the geometry in the image). Trying to make me answer geometry questions whilst giving me solely contextual data is a form of equivocation.

Okay, now feel free to answer my question, and ask me another.

I did answer your question. But you didn't answer mine. I didn't ask you to determine what shape the floor was.

You may be able to logically deduce, if it is a floor, that is is not spherical, based on as much common sense and everyday observations like the floor or water in my case, is flat in nearly every instance.

 I asked you if it appeared spherical. Being that is is a 2 dimensional image, you can't. It is circular. Now here's the relevance.

https://i.imgur.com/D7aOXVA.gif

Images are inconclusive. Face it.

SilverishGoldNova

@Goobery I believe I can answer that question for you.

So, I think that what you're trying to say from your arguments is, the reason we don't see curvature is because the Earth is too big, but, from long distance observations, we have demonstrably shown no curvature from long distance observations from hundreds of miles which would be impossible on a globe. Interested? 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat okay, let’s do 1:1

There is not enough visual image information to determine the geometry of the floor in your example. It could be flat, round, cubic or cylindrical, I couldn’t tell unless you showed me much more of the image. I can probably go so far as to say it’s not a sphere with a radius less than a few meters, but other than that: it’s not possible to confirm either way.

Now, I could use context specific information, knowing that it is a floor and all floors I have experienced at human level have been constucted to be relatively flat; but that is relying on an implicit context; not any specific information in the image. 

The same way, if you took a super-close up picture of a sphere: say a basketball, you could make it appear to look flat if you zoom in enough. If you then asked “does this basketball look flat”, it would be equally context based.

I’m certain that is not what you meant: as to try and make this argument would be confusing contextual data (what the image is of), with geometric data (what can be determined solely from the geometry in the image). Trying to make me answer geometry questions whilst giving me solely contextual data is a form of equivocation.

Okay, now feel free to answer my question, and ask me another.

I did answer your question. But you didn't answer mine. I didn't ask you to determine what shape the floor was.

You may be able to logically deduce, if it is a floor, that is is not spherical, based on as much common sense and everyday observations like the floor or water in my case, is flat in nearly every instance.

 I asked you if it appeared spherical. Being that is is a 2 dimensional image, you can't. It is circular. Now here's the relevance.

https://i.imgur.com/D7aOXVA.gif

Images are inconclusive. Face it.

Oh yes; you did answer my question: it was just before you said you wouldn’t answer.

I asked specifically: “if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?”

You said false: which is obviously wrong: as objectively speaking most lenses and images of straight lines show minimal amounts of distortion over most of the image.

To clarify: I am am not asking whether some images could distort straight lines a tiny bit right at the extremes.

I am asking whether some camera lenses do not produce any noticeable distortion for large parts of the image?

You didn’t really mean “false”, right? You meant “true: but with the following caveats, most cameras can bend straight lines a little bit at the edges.”








Now, you asked whether the floor looked flat in that image: My answer is summarized as follows:

1.) there’s not enough raw geometric information in the image to tell conclusively from that geometry.

2.) but we Floors at a human level are generally flat, so the context of the image: that of a floor, I can tell it’s not spherical.

if you don’t feel I answered your question, please
Feel free to explain why.

If you want to change your question to “how do you determine the geometric shape of a flat image”, by all means, it’s not clear whether that’s the question your asking or not.

Nope

Erfisflat If earth is round then it does effect refraction. We have established that when light inters a new medium it refracts. Air with different density is a new medium. If the earth is curved when light travels straight it gains altitude but scenes the atmosphere is getting thinner it is refracted away from the normal which would mean it refracts downward fallowing earths curvature. This would not matter on a flat earth but when trying to disprove a globe earth this is something you must represent in your experiments. Also thinner is noticeable less then a thousand feet when like I said their is a cold or warm sheet of air under air of a very different  temperature. Cold air is of course more dense the warm air. Col sheets of air are most commonly found over large body of water like lakes for reasons I mentioned above. Lakes are a some of the best places to see atmospheric refraction because the air gets thinner quickly. 

Erfisflat

"Oh yes; you did answer my question: it was just before you said you wouldn’t answer."

"I asked specifically: “if you’re able to take pictures of straight lines; that means that some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines?”

"You said false: which is obviously wrong: as objectively speaking most lenses and images of straight lines show minimal amounts of distortion over most of the image."

Your objective reality is not mine. How much high altitude footage have you seen? I saw a regular (mostly rectilinear) lens warp the horizon from curved to flat to convex, all in the same shot. All discernable straight lines were straight on the ground before launch.

"To clarify: I am am not asking whether some images could distort straight lines a tiny bit right at the extremes."

It was enough to warp the horizon that much, all closer to the center than the edge.

"I am asking whether some camera lenses do not produce any noticeable distortion for large parts of the image?"

A perfectly rectilinear lens is impossible, I've sourced this information.

"You didn’t really mean “false”, right? You meant “true: but with the following caveats, most cameras can bend straight lines a little bit at the edges.”

No, I meant false.








"Now, you asked whether the floor looked flat in that image: My answer is summarized as follows:

1.) there’s not enough raw geometric information in the image to tell conclusively from that geometry.

2.) but we Floors at a human level are generally flat, so the context of the image: that of a floor, I can tell it’s not spherical.

if you don’t feel I answered your question, please
Feel free to explain why."

Because I didn't ask you to logically deduce what shape the floor was. I asked you it appeared to be spherical.

"If you want to change your question to “how do you determine the geometric shape of a flat image”, by all means, it’s not clear whether that’s the question your asking or not."

Why would I do that? That isn't what I want to know.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Okay: so I asked you, specifically if some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines.

You said that is false. 

So, if I show a picture from a camera that doesn’t appreciably change straight lines, I’ve either refuted your answer, or shown you didn’t really mean no.

As we both know such images exist, I’ll give you an opportunity to clarify.

I even gave you the out of saying “that’s true, with caveats”.


There are no perfect lenses: but as my question is not whether the lens is perfect, but whether lenses distortion are sufficiently small to not affect straight lines very much at all.

You will get some small deviations towards the edge of all lenses, but again: my question is not asking whether lenses are all perfect, but simply perfect enough to not grossly alter straight lines.




Now: you asked me whether the image “appears to be a sphere”.

I answered: no. But I caveated my answer to make sure is understood the reason I don’t think it appeared to be a sphere was not based on the information in the image, but on my separate knowledge of Floors.

I did that to make sure my answer was fully accurate and could not be misused to construe something I didn’t mean it to.

I sorry you feel that wasn’t answering the question: but I was feel I was especially clear.

Erfisflat

"Okay: so I asked you, specifically if some camera lenses show minimal amounts of distortion; specifically, they do not show enough distortion to appreciably change straight lines.

You said that is false. 

So, if I show a picture from a camera that doesn’t appreciably change straight lines, I’ve either refuted your answer, or shown you didn’t really mean no."

I could then show you a video that does appreciably curve straight lines, and state the obvious, again. Results from practically unverifiable imagery are inconclusive.

"As we both know such images exist, I’ll give you an opportunity to clarify."

I even gave you the out of saying “that’s true, with caveats”.


There are no perfect lenses: but as my question is not whether the lens is perfect, but whether lenses distortion are sufficiently small to not affect straight lines very much at all."

And I answered your question.

"You will get some small deviations towards the edge of all lenses, but again: my question is not asking whether lenses are all perfect, but simply perfect enough to not grossly alter straight lines."

Now it's  "grossly"? Caught red handed packpeddling?




"Now: you asked me whether the image “appears to be a sphere”.

I answered: no. But I caveated my answer to make sure is understood the reason I don’t think it appeared to be a sphere was not based on the information in the image, but on my separate knowledge of Floors."

Which is irrelevant. The floor, if it is that, could very well be spherical, or flat. The point is that you cannot tell from an image on a computer. You dodged and misconstrued the point well enough for me to make a decision as to your answer.

"I did that to make sure my answer was fully accurate and could not be misused to construe something I didn’t mean it to."

No you didnt. You constructed a strawman to dodge my question. 

"I sorry you feel that wasn’t answering the question: but I was feel I was especially clear."

Pogue

"YOU DON’T WEIGH LESS AT THE HORIZON

While flat-earthers will contend that there is no such thing as gravity, this force unites the entire universe. It’s everything from what makes the numbers jump on a bathroom scale to the reason why planets and stars form. It uniformly pulls everyone on the surface of Earth toward our planet’s center of mass (roughly the exact center). That’s why you’ll weigh the same in Los Angeles as you will in Jakarta.

If the Earth was flat, gravity would no longer pull everyone the same way. If the flat Earth would be something like a disk, those at the edge of the disk would be pulled relatively sideways, while those at the center of the plate would be pulled straight down. The difference would change your weight enough to confuse a bathroom scale. Considering that humans have been to every landmass on Earth without celebrating sudden lightness, we can rule out a flat planet.

YOU DON’T ALWAYS SEE THE SAME CONSTELLATIONS

Hit up a friend in Australia and ask them what constellations they can see at night. Now tell them which ones pepper your patch of darkness. They won’t be the same. Because the Earth is a shape other than a flat disk, when looking into the night sky the Earth itself can block your view.

If the flat Earth theory were true, everyone should be able to see the same constellations all the time, as if we all were staring up from the same section of summer grass.

WE’VE SEEN EARTH FROM SPACE, FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES

This is “Earthrise,” arguably the most famous photo ever taken. It was beamed back to us by the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission on Christmas Eve, 1968. It shows the Earth as a perfect (from that vantage point at least) azure orb speckled with land and clouds, and us. It’s true that the Earth could be a disk in this photo, and the astronauts were seeing it face-on, making it appear spherical.

However, since 1968, we’ve used our spacecraft and satellites to take literally thousands of photos of Earth, and from every angle. Each shot shows Earth like Earthrise did. That’s only possible if Earth is a disk in three dimensions — a sphere. Today, astronauts like Scott Kelly even show us the curve of the Earth in real-time. He sees a sunrise every 90 minutes, a phenomenon impossible with a disk.

THE SAME OBJECTS MAKE DIFFERENT SHADOWS

Here’s one you can try at home. If the Earth were flat, you could drive two sticks into the ground at any place on Earth, and the shadows those sticks would make would be the same length. (Because the Sun is so far away from Earth, its incoming rays can be considered parallel).

Place a stick in the ground on a sunny day, then measure the length of the shadow. At the same time, call a friend who is at least a few miles away from you and tell them to do the same. The lengths you measure will be different! The curvature of a spherical Earth means that sun rays will hit each stick differently if they are far enough apart.

Measuring shadows like that is how Greek astronomer Eratosthenes very nearly calculated the exact circumference of the Earth in…250 B.C. Yep. We’ve been certain the Earth is round since maybe 500 B.C., or 2500 years before a rapper dropped a flat Earth diss track.

TIMEZONES EXIST

To make the seasons work with a flat Earth, advocates claim that the Sun orbits in a circle above our disk, like a tetherball on an invisible string. But timezones exist. Try calling someone in China right now and convincing them that you are experiencing the same time of day (and then apologize).

A flat Earth can’t account for how some parts of the planet are provably in darkness while other parts are bathed in light.

THE REST OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Like how we’ve seen the Earth from many angles and found it round, we’ve sent cameras to the rest of the planets in our solar system and snapped photos of them from many angles too. They all appear to be spheres. That makes sense if gravity is the main force in the universe pulling cosmic gas and dust and rock together to form planets.

The chances that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system that is non-spherical, yet subject to the same forces as other planets, are zero.

ECLIPSES SHOW YOU EARTH’S SHAPE

Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? It’s when the Earth passes in between the Sun and our moon and casts a shadow over the lunar surface. If you look closely, you can pick out a slight curvature.

Curvature is possible with a flat disk, but even flat-earthers admit that the Earth spins. If the Earth were flat, there would be some people that occasionally see a straight line projected on the moon (the edge of a disk). That hasn’t happened since humans looked up, so a sphere is the logical shape to assume."

Also, buildings in the southern hemisphere aren't built on steep angles. This is a great Vsause video.

Also, if you deny the pictures, during eclipses, if the ISS goes above where you live, you can see it. 

Erfisflat

Pogue said:

"YOU DON’T WEIGH LESS AT THE HORIZON

While flat-earthers will contend that there is no such thing as gravity, this force unites the entire universe. It’s everything from what makes the numbers jump on a bathroom scale to the reason why planets and stars form. It uniformly pulls everyone on the surface of Earth toward our planet’s center of mass (roughly the exact center). That’s why you’ll weigh the same in Los Angeles as you will in Jakarta.

If the Earth was flat, gravity would no longer pull everyone the same way. If the flat Earth would be something like a disk, those at the edge of the disk would be pulled relatively sideways, while those at the center of the plate would be pulled straight down. The difference would change your weight enough to confuse a bathroom scale. Considering that humans have been to every landmass on Earth without celebrating sudden lightness, we can rule out a flat planet.

YOU DON’T ALWAYS SEE THE SAME CONSTELLATIONS

Hit up a friend in Australia and ask them what constellations they can see at night. Now tell them which ones pepper your patch of darkness. They won’t be the same. Because the Earth is a shape other than a flat disk, when looking into the night sky the Earth itself can block your view.

If the flat Earth theory were true, everyone should be able to see the same constellations all the time, as if we all were staring up from the same section of summer grass.

WE’VE SEEN EARTH FROM SPACE, FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES

This is “Earthrise,” arguably the most famous photo ever taken. It was beamed back to us by the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission on Christmas Eve, 1968. It shows the Earth as a perfect (from that vantage point at least) azure orb speckled with land and clouds, and us. It’s true that the Earth could be a disk in this photo, and the astronauts were seeing it face-on, making it appear spherical.

However, since 1968, we’ve used our spacecraft and satellites to take literally thousands of photos of Earth, and from every angle. Each shot shows Earth like Earthrise did. That’s only possible if Earth is a disk in three dimensions — a sphere. Today, astronauts like Scott Kelly even show us the curve of the Earth in real-time. He sees a sunrise every 90 minutes, a phenomenon impossible with a disk.

THE SAME OBJECTS MAKE DIFFERENT SHADOWS

Here’s one you can try at home. If the Earth were flat, you could drive two sticks into the ground at any place on Earth, and the shadows those sticks would make would be the same length. (Because the Sun is so far away from Earth, its incoming rays can be considered parallel).

Place a stick in the ground on a sunny day, then measure the length of the shadow. At the same time, call a friend who is at least a few miles away from you and tell them to do the same. The lengths you measure will be different! The curvature of a spherical Earth means that sun rays will hit each stick differently if they are far enough apart.

Measuring shadows like that is how Greek astronomer Eratosthenes very nearly calculated the exact circumference of the Earth in…250 B.C. Yep. We’ve been certain the Earth is round since maybe 500 B.C., or 2500 years before a rapper dropped a flat Earth diss track.

TIMEZONES EXIST

To make the seasons work with a flat Earth, advocates claim that the Sun orbits in a circle above our disk, like a tetherball on an invisible string. But timezones exist. Try calling someone in China right now and convincing them that you are experiencing the same time of day (and then apologize).

A flat Earth can’t account for how some parts of the planet are provably in darkness while other parts are bathed in light.

THE REST OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Like how we’ve seen the Earth from many angles and found it round, we’ve sent cameras to the rest of the planets in our solar system and snapped photos of them from many angles too. They all appear to be spheres. That makes sense if gravity is the main force in the universe pulling cosmic gas and dust and rock together to form planets.

The chances that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system that is non-spherical, yet subject to the same forces as other planets, are zero.

ECLIPSES SHOW YOU EARTH’S SHAPE

Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? It’s when the Earth passes in between the Sun and our moon and casts a shadow over the lunar surface. If you look closely, you can pick out a slight curvature.

Curvature is possible with a flat disk, but even flat-earthers admit that the Earth spins. If the Earth were flat, there would be some people that occasionally see a straight line projected on the moon (the edge of a disk). That hasn’t happened since humans looked up, so a sphere is the logical shape to assume."

Also, buildings in the southern hemisphere aren't built on steep angles. This is a great Vsause video.

Also, if you deny the pictures, during eclipses, if the ISS goes above where you live, you can see it. 

Welcome to the discussion! I'll begin typing up a rebuttal soon, unless @SilverishGoldNova wants these easy ones?

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

It is an objective fact that most cameras do not noticeably or appreciably change straight lines; wide angle lenses do, but most off the shelf lenses have minimal distortion in most areas of the image.

Is there tiny amounts of distortion, sure: but not enough so that a straight line at roughly the Center of such a camera will be affected.

It is an objective fact that if the horizon was flat, and you took a photo of it with most cameras it would remain flat. 

The question was more about the lengths you will go to dodge acknowledging a basic objective fact that goes somewhat against your position.

The answer is: about ten posts, and repeated objections, and out right denial.

if you paid attention, it is reasonable to respond how I did: say yes it’s true, but there are some caveats to that: but you don’t seem able to do that.




Now, I’m sorry but when you ask: “does the floor appear spherical”, and I answer “no it does appear spherical to me”, and then explain why I came to that conclusion: that is 100% answering the question.

its probably not the answer you wanted to here; but I really dont understand how answering no to a yes/no question is “not answering the question”

Feel free to rephrase the question, and I will try to answer it, but I took what you meant by “does the floor look spherical” to mean “does the floor in the image look as if it is spherical”, and I am pretty certain that’s what I answered.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Gooberry

@Erfisflat
“The point is that you cannot tell from an image on a computer.”

Ahh I understand your problem.

You asked whether the image appeared to be a sphere: to me it did not (and I gave the reasons why).

I answered your question; it seems you are confusing the disagreement with my answer (because you believe you can’t tell either way), with feeling I did not answer your question.

Erfisflat

"It is an objective fact that most cameras do not noticeably or appreciably change straight lines; wide angle lenses do, but most off the shelf lenses have minimal distortion in most areas of the image."

Minimal distortion is not zero distortion. 

"Is there tiny amounts of distortion, sure: but not enough so that a straight line at roughly the Center of such a camera will be affected."

So do "most "off the shelf" lenses have minimal distortion in most areas of the image", or" not enough so that a straight line at roughly the Center of such a camera will be affected"? Minimal distortion can cause a bend in straight lines. You keep referring to images that ,comically, you cannot produce!

"It is an objective fact that if the horizon was flat, and you took a photo of it with most cameras it would remain flat."

I mean, you can say that it is fact, I can't say the opposite is fact. We're right back to where we started.

"The question was more about the lengths you will go to dodge acknowledging a basic objective fact that goes somewhat against your position."

Basic objective opinion you mean? Your brain may be able to work out whether it is a straight line, or you can deduce, as you did with my question, whether it is a straight line, or spherical, this doesn't mean it is fact. 



"The answer is: about ten posts, and repeated objections, and out right denial."

"if you paid attention, it is reasonable to respond how I did: say yes it’s true, but there are some caveats to that: but you don’t seem able to do that."

There are caveats to everything. But to say that a lens with curved glass won't curve a straight line is a baseless assumption. It is and objective fact that curved glass bend lines. 





"Now, I’m sorry but when you ask: “does the floor appear spherical”, and I answer “no it does appear spherical to me”, and then explain why I came to that conclusion: that is 100% answering the question."

"its probably not the answer you wanted to here; but I really dont understand how answering no to a yes/no question is “not answering the question”"

I could say the same about your question, except you don't have a clue what you're talking about obviously.

"Feel free to rephrase the question, and I will try to answer it, but I took what you meant by “does the floor look spherical” to mean “does the floor in the image look as if it is spherical”, and I am pretty certain that’s what I answered."

You saw a round shape of light on a surface. How have you determined the overall shape of the floor isn't spherical, without deductive reasoning? 

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

What you seem is literally just denying everything.

Most cameras won’t produce appreciable distortion, and most camera lenses do not distort straight lines to any noticeable degree. This is supported by millions of photos online that include completely straight lines: buildings, roads, etc.

If you deny this: I can happily produce thousands of images of straight lines.

As a result, it is therefore an objective fact that if you take any one of these cameras, and used them to take a high altitude horizon: they will not distort it appreciably.

You can’t agree that most lenses produce minimal distortion, and then disagree that photos taken with a lens that produces minimal distortion will take an image with minimal distortion. It is just nonsensical.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Not fake, but innacurate. Making images inconclusive.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

”You saw a round shape of light on a surface. How have you determined the overall shape of the floor isn't spherical, without deductive reasoning?”

Okay; so why no deductive reasoning? Why is it invalid to use a class of logical reasoning?


Anyhoo Was I not clear? I thought I was clear.

The shape of the shadow/light gave the appearance that the surface was flat over the small extent of the image. Now, that would be consistent with both a large sphere or flat surface (we can rule out small spheres given the apparent flatness).

So it could either be a large sphere, or flat surface so I used my contextual knowledge of Floors to determine that as it’s a floor, it’s probbly not a sphere out of those two options (inductive reasoning).

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Not fake, but innacurate. Making images inconclusive.

It would definitely not be an accurate representation of reality, I agree: and wasn’t trying to imply otherwise.

Why would you not consider it fake?

Erfisflat

"What you seem is literally just denying everything."

And you've now dropped any and all points related to my question. Very telling. So far I've given sources and images to support my claims and overall position. I've seen nothing but assertions from you. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that you are "denying everything".

"Most cameras won’t produce appreciable distortion, and most camera lenses do not distort straight lines to any noticeable degree. "

Assertion.

"This is supported by millions of photos online that include completely straight lines: buildings, roads, etc.



If you deny this: I can happily produce thousands of images of straight lines."

I would then, as I said before, post a video of a (mostly) rectilinear lens warping a horizon from convex to concave, which would be more relevant, effectively nullifying any images you may be able to produce of the ground or buildings.There is lens correcting software. You know, from our previous engagements about fish eye lenses, that warping a curved line in the opposite direction is impossible with any lens and that flattening one is only possible on an extreme edge of the screen.

Since you haven't offered a shred of evidence aside from your presuppositions and faulty logic so far, I don't think I have much to worry about.

"As a result, it is therefore an objective fact that if you take any one of these cameras, and used them to take a high altitude horizon: they will not distort it appreciably."

Ill informed deduced objective opinion.

"You can’t agree that most lenses produce minimal distortion, and then disagree that photos taken with a lens that produces minimal distortion will take an image with minimal distortion. It is just nonsensical."

You're so full of opinions today!

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Not fake, but innacurate. Making images inconclusive.

It would definitely not be an accurate representation of reality, I agree: and wasn’t trying to imply otherwise.

Why would you not consider it fake?

Because it is an actual photograph, even with distortion. I think of faked as fabricated. A painting or image produced in Photoshop that is misrepresented or misinterpreted as a photograph. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"What you seem is literally just denying everything."

And you've now dropped any and all points related to my question. Very telling. So far I've given sources and images to support my claims and overall position. I've seen nothing but assertions from you. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that you are "denying everything".

"Most cameras won’t produce appreciable distortion, and most camera lenses do not distort straight lines to any noticeable degree. "

Assertion.

"This is supported by millions of photos online that include completely straight lines: buildings, roads, etc.



If you deny this: I can happily produce thousands of images of straight lines."

I would then, as I said before, post a video of a (mostly) rectilinear lens warping a horizon from convex to concave, which would be more relevant, effectively nullifying any images you may be able to produce of the ground or buildings.There is lens correcting software. You know, from our previous engagements about fish eye lenses, that warping a curved line in the opposite direction is impossible with any lens and that flattening one is only possible on an extreme edge of the screen.

 Since you haven't offered a shred of evidence aside from your presuppositions and faulty logic so far, I don't think I have much to worry about.

"As a result, it is therefore an objective fact that if you take any one of these cameras, and used them to take a high altitude horizon: they will not distort it appreciably."

Ill informed deduced objective opinion.

"You can’t agree that most lenses produce minimal distortion, and then disagree that photos taken with a lens that produces minimal distortion will take an image with minimal distortion. It is just nonsensical."

You're so full of opinions today!

Some lensds will bend straight lines.

Some lenses will not bend straight lines to any significant degree.

I can prove this second statement by producing camera images where straight lines are not bent or distorted.

If you are claiming that this is not true: please confirm this now, so that when I produce these images showing that cameras can take images of straight lines without distorting them; it proves you wrong.

Now; if I can prove through images that some Cameras can take images and pictures of straight lines without appreciable distortion of straight lines: please explain how placing that same camera lens on a balloon, and taking an image from high altitude of a flat horizon would not also produce an image without any appreciable distortion of that straight line.

You seem to be vehemently rejecting that, and I can’t for the life of me understand what your logical reasoning for that is.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Not fake, but innacurate. Making images inconclusive.

It would definitely not be an accurate representation of reality, I agree: and wasn’t trying to imply otherwise.

Why would you not consider it fake?

Because it is an actual photograph, even with distortion. I think of faked as fabricated. A painting or image produced in Photoshop that is misrepresented or misinterpreted as a photograph. 

@Erfisflat

Excellent answer. I would like to clarify something when you say “misinterpreted”.

If it took a selfie, and I misinterpreted it as a real image of your face (no ad-hom accusation of you being ugly, I swear! Just a theoretical), would that mean the image is fake?

The reason I ask is misinterpreted seems to be something a viewer of the image would do, not the producer of the image. I would presume fakery is solely down to the producer. Right?

Erfisflat

"Some lensds will bend straight lines."

Demonstrated fact.

"Some lenses will not bend straight lines to any significant degree."

Baseless assertion. 

"I can prove this second statement by producing camera images where straight lines are not bent or distorted."

This is irrelevant because we are not examining images of straight lines at a practical altitude. 

"If you are claiming that this is not true: please confirm this now, so that when I produce these images showing that cameras can take images of straight lines without distorting them; it proves you wrong."

You can assume it proves me wrong, but we all know you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and the scientific method has no meaning to you.

"Now; if I can prove through images that some Cameras can take images and pictures of straight lines without appreciable distortion of straight lines: please explain how placing that same camera lens on a balloon, and taking an image from high altitude of a flat horizon would not also produce an image without any appreciable distortion of that straight line."

If you paid attention, the answer to this blunderous question was provided several pages ago. I can understand that you didn't catch it, mainly because you've blatantly ignored almost everything I've said and cherry picked your way thus far. Once again for the cherry pickers.


https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion/amp#barrel-distortion

"Barrel distortion is typically present on most wide angle prime lenses and many zoom lenses with relatively short focal lengths. The amount of distortion can vary, depending on camera to subject distance."


"You seem to be vehemently rejecting that, and I can’t for the life of me understand what your logical reasoning for that is."

Not casually glancing over references and evidence would be a great start for you anyway. Research. Images are not infallible. Saying that any image should be taken as fact is illogical, for many reasons.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Not fake, but innacurate. Making images inconclusive.

It would definitely not be an accurate representation of reality, I agree: and wasn’t trying to imply otherwise.

Why would you not consider it fake?

Because it is an actual photograph, even with distortion. I think of faked as fabricated. A painting or image produced in Photoshop that is misrepresented or misinterpreted as a photograph. 

@Erfisflat

Excellent answer. I would like to clarify something when you say “misinterpreted”.

If it took a selfie, and I misinterpreted it as a real image of your face (no ad-hom accusation of you being ugly, I swear! Just a theoretical), would that mean the image is fake?

The reason I ask is misinterpreted seems to be something a viewer of the image would do, not the producer of the image. I would presume fakery is solely down to the producer. Right?

Why would you not interpret an image of my face as an image of my face? Do you know what the term "leading" means? You have literally held a carrot out the entire time and you're too ignorant to see it gets you nowhere.

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

"YOU DON’T WEIGH LESS AT THE HORIZON

While flat-earthers will contend that there is no such thing as gravity, this force unites the entire universe. It’s everything from what makes the numbers jump on a bathroom scale to the reason why planets and stars form. It uniformly pulls everyone on the surface of Earth toward our planet’s center of mass (roughly the exact center). That’s why you’ll weigh the same in Los Angeles as you will in Jakarta.

If the Earth was flat, gravity would no longer pull everyone the same way. If the flat Earth would be something like a disk, those at the edge of the disk would be pulled relatively sideways, while those at the center of the plate would be pulled straight down. The difference would change your weight enough to confuse a bathroom scale. Considering that humans have been to every landmass on Earth without celebrating sudden lightness, we can rule out a flat planet.

YOU DON’T ALWAYS SEE THE SAME CONSTELLATIONS

Hit up a friend in Australia and ask them what constellations they can see at night. Now tell them which ones pepper your patch of darkness. They won’t be the same. Because the Earth is a shape other than a flat disk, when looking into the night sky the Earth itself can block your view.

If the flat Earth theory were true, everyone should be able to see the same constellations all the time, as if we all were staring up from the same section of summer grass.

WE’VE SEEN EARTH FROM SPACE, FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES

This is “Earthrise,” arguably the most famous photo ever taken. It was beamed back to us by the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission on Christmas Eve, 1968. It shows the Earth as a perfect (from that vantage point at least) azure orb speckled with land and clouds, and us. It’s true that the Earth could be a disk in this photo, and the astronauts were seeing it face-on, making it appear spherical.

However, since 1968, we’ve used our spacecraft and satellites to take literally thousands of photos of Earth, and from every angle. Each shot shows Earth like Earthrise did. That’s only possible if Earth is a disk in three dimensions — a sphere. Today, astronauts like Scott Kelly even show us the curve of the Earth in real-time. He sees a sunrise every 90 minutes, a phenomenon impossible with a disk.

THE SAME OBJECTS MAKE DIFFERENT SHADOWS

Here’s one you can try at home. If the Earth were flat, you could drive two sticks into the ground at any place on Earth, and the shadows those sticks would make would be the same length. (Because the Sun is so far away from Earth, its incoming rays can be considered parallel).

Place a stick in the ground on a sunny day, then measure the length of the shadow. At the same time, call a friend who is at least a few miles away from you and tell them to do the same. The lengths you measure will be different! The curvature of a spherical Earth means that sun rays will hit each stick differently if they are far enough apart.

Measuring shadows like that is how Greek astronomer Eratosthenes very nearly calculated the exact circumference of the Earth in…250 B.C. Yep. We’ve been certain the Earth is round since maybe 500 B.C., or 2500 years before a rapper dropped a flat Earth diss track.

TIMEZONES EXIST

To make the seasons work with a flat Earth, advocates claim that the Sun orbits in a circle above our disk, like a tetherball on an invisible string. But timezones exist. Try calling someone in China right now and convincing them that you are experiencing the same time of day (and then apologize).

A flat Earth can’t account for how some parts of the planet are provably in darkness while other parts are bathed in light.

THE REST OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Like how we’ve seen the Earth from many angles and found it round, we’ve sent cameras to the rest of the planets in our solar system and snapped photos of them from many angles too. They all appear to be spheres. That makes sense if gravity is the main force in the universe pulling cosmic gas and dust and rock together to form planets.

The chances that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system that is non-spherical, yet subject to the same forces as other planets, are zero.

ECLIPSES SHOW YOU EARTH’S SHAPE

Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? It’s when the Earth passes in between the Sun and our moon and casts a shadow over the lunar surface. If you look closely, you can pick out a slight curvature.

Curvature is possible with a flat disk, but even flat-earthers admit that the Earth spins. If the Earth were flat, there would be some people that occasionally see a straight line projected on the moon (the edge of a disk). That hasn’t happened since humans looked up, so a sphere is the logical shape to assume."

Also, buildings in the southern hemisphere aren't built on steep angles. This is a great Vsause video.

Also, if you deny the pictures, during eclipses, if the ISS goes above where you live, you can see it. 

Welcome to the discussion! I'll begin typing up a rebuttal soon, unless @SilverishGoldNova wants these easy ones?

I think I've already debunked Popsci before...

Erfisflat

SilverishGoldNova said:

Erfisflat said:

Pogue said:

"YOU DON’T WEIGH LESS AT THE HORIZON

While flat-earthers will contend that there is no such thing as gravity, this force unites the entire universe. It’s everything from what makes the numbers jump on a bathroom scale to the reason why planets and stars form. It uniformly pulls everyone on the surface of Earth toward our planet’s center of mass (roughly the exact center). That’s why you’ll weigh the same in Los Angeles as you will in Jakarta.

If the Earth was flat, gravity would no longer pull everyone the same way. If the flat Earth would be something like a disk, those at the edge of the disk would be pulled relatively sideways, while those at the center of the plate would be pulled straight down. The difference would change your weight enough to confuse a bathroom scale. Considering that humans have been to every landmass on Earth without celebrating sudden lightness, we can rule out a flat planet.

YOU DON’T ALWAYS SEE THE SAME CONSTELLATIONS

Hit up a friend in Australia and ask them what constellations they can see at night. Now tell them which ones pepper your patch of darkness. They won’t be the same. Because the Earth is a shape other than a flat disk, when looking into the night sky the Earth itself can block your view.

If the flat Earth theory were true, everyone should be able to see the same constellations all the time, as if we all were staring up from the same section of summer grass.

WE’VE SEEN EARTH FROM SPACE, FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES

This is “Earthrise,” arguably the most famous photo ever taken. It was beamed back to us by the astronauts on the Apollo 8 mission on Christmas Eve, 1968. It shows the Earth as a perfect (from that vantage point at least) azure orb speckled with land and clouds, and us. It’s true that the Earth could be a disk in this photo, and the astronauts were seeing it face-on, making it appear spherical.

However, since 1968, we’ve used our spacecraft and satellites to take literally thousands of photos of Earth, and from every angle. Each shot shows Earth like Earthrise did. That’s only possible if Earth is a disk in three dimensions — a sphere. Today, astronauts like Scott Kelly even show us the curve of the Earth in real-time. He sees a sunrise every 90 minutes, a phenomenon impossible with a disk.

THE SAME OBJECTS MAKE DIFFERENT SHADOWS

Here’s one you can try at home. If the Earth were flat, you could drive two sticks into the ground at any place on Earth, and the shadows those sticks would make would be the same length. (Because the Sun is so far away from Earth, its incoming rays can be considered parallel).

Place a stick in the ground on a sunny day, then measure the length of the shadow. At the same time, call a friend who is at least a few miles away from you and tell them to do the same. The lengths you measure will be different! The curvature of a spherical Earth means that sun rays will hit each stick differently if they are far enough apart.

Measuring shadows like that is how Greek astronomer Eratosthenes very nearly calculated the exact circumference of the Earth in…250 B.C. Yep. We’ve been certain the Earth is round since maybe 500 B.C., or 2500 years before a rapper dropped a flat Earth diss track.

TIMEZONES EXIST

To make the seasons work with a flat Earth, advocates claim that the Sun orbits in a circle above our disk, like a tetherball on an invisible string. But timezones exist. Try calling someone in China right now and convincing them that you are experiencing the same time of day (and then apologize).

A flat Earth can’t account for how some parts of the planet are provably in darkness while other parts are bathed in light.

THE REST OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Like how we’ve seen the Earth from many angles and found it round, we’ve sent cameras to the rest of the planets in our solar system and snapped photos of them from many angles too. They all appear to be spheres. That makes sense if gravity is the main force in the universe pulling cosmic gas and dust and rock together to form planets.

The chances that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system that is non-spherical, yet subject to the same forces as other planets, are zero.

ECLIPSES SHOW YOU EARTH’S SHAPE

Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? It’s when the Earth passes in between the Sun and our moon and casts a shadow over the lunar surface. If you look closely, you can pick out a slight curvature.

Curvature is possible with a flat disk, but even flat-earthers admit that the Earth spins. If the Earth were flat, there would be some people that occasionally see a straight line projected on the moon (the edge of a disk). That hasn’t happened since humans looked up, so a sphere is the logical shape to assume."

Also, buildings in the southern hemisphere aren't built on steep angles. This is a great Vsause video.

Also, if you deny the pictures, during eclipses, if the ISS goes above where you live, you can see it. 

Welcome to the discussion! I'll begin typing up a rebuttal soon, unless @SilverishGoldNova wants these easy ones?

I think I've already debunked Popsci before...

Yes, me too. Maybe you can link it then?

Erfisflat

Straight lines on the ground, WARPING HORIZON at 71km.

Pogue

@Erfisflat and @SilverishGoldNova can you link it then?  

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So; next.

If took a selfie of yourself with a wide angled lense: would this be a “fake” image. 

Whether you answer yes or no: could you explain why?

Not fake, but innacurate. Making images inconclusive.

It would definitely not be an accurate representation of reality, I agree: and wasn’t trying to imply otherwise.

Why would you not consider it fake?

Because it is an actual photograph, even with distortion. I think of faked as fabricated. A painting or image produced in Photoshop that is misrepresented or misinterpreted as a photograph. 

@Erfisflat

Excellent answer. I would like to clarify something when you say “misinterpreted”.

If it took a selfie, and I misinterpreted it as a real image of your face (no ad-hom accusation of you being ugly, I swear! Just a theoretical), would that mean the image is fake?

The reason I ask is misinterpreted seems to be something a viewer of the image would do, not the producer of the image. I would presume fakery is solely down to the producer. Right?

Why would you not interpret an image of my face as an image of my face? Do you know what the term "leading" means? You have literally held a carrot out the entire time and you're too ignorant to see it gets you nowhere.

Of course I’m leading you; it’s to stop going off at wild tangents, and to make sure there is 0 misunderstanding.

You implied that an image that is misinterpreted makes it fake.

I asked whether if I misinterpreted a fish eye image of your face as an accurate representation of what you look like, would that make the image fake.

i thought I explained why; the word “misinterpreted” makes little sense to me in the context of fake (and I explained why).

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“Some lenses do not bend straight lines to any significant degree”

”baseless assertion”



Is this his camera causing straight lines to look curved to any meaningful degree?

Or this one:


Or this one:


It is a demonstrable fact that some lenses do not significantly distort straight lines.


My argument is that many every day cameras do not significantly change straight lines. That is demonstrablez

You can post as many images of camera distortion as you want: you seem to be pretending as if I’m arguing that cameras never distort straight lines: that would be a misrepresentation of my position and thus a straw man.

So; there we go. You said it’s a baseless assertion to say some cameras do not distort straight lines to any meanginful degree.

Refuted.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

“Some lenses do not bend straight lines to any significant degree”

”baseless assertion”



Is this his camera causing straight lines to look curved to any meaningful degree?

Or this one:


Or this one:


It is a demonstrable fact that some lenses do not significantly distort straight lines.


My argument is that many every day cameras do not significantly change straight lines. That is demonstrablez

You can post as many images of camera distortion as you want: you seem to be pretending as if I’m arguing that cameras never distort straight lines: that would be a misrepresentation of my position and thus a straw man.

So; there we go. You said it’s a baseless assertion to say some cameras do not distort straight lines to any meanginful degree.

Refuted.

And of course, you completely ignore my last 3-4 posts, where I proved, with source AND example how a lens that does not bend lines sometimes can bend lines.  The images you provided proves absolutely nothing until you take that same lens up and point it at a straight or curved line 300-500 miles away.

Since you more than likely didn't examine the footage, here are some screens that put it to rest, so that we can move forward from this inconclusive "evidence"


Ground level. Straight lines are but yards away, still straight, indicating mostly rectilinear lens.


Convex earth at 230,000 feet.


Concave earth seconds later. The horizon crosses very near to the center in both instances.

Making images of the horizon inconclusive at best. If you honestly want to persue this any further, I have to tell you, my patience is already stretched, and I can't continue this conversation if you're going to ignore what I say. Cheers on finally providing some images though.

Pogue

@Erfisflat
Since gravity pulls objects to the center, the Earth would compress back into a spherical object. Also, since it has to be pulling you to the center, building would have to be built on an angle. The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.How is this possible on a flat Earth. 


http://mathscinotes.com/2017/01/effect-of-earths-curvature-on-suspension-bridge-dimensions/

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

“Some lenses do not bend straight lines to any significant degree”

”baseless assertion”



Is this his camera causing straight lines to look curved to any meaningful degree?

Or this one:


Or this one:


It is a demonstrable fact that some lenses do not significantly distort straight lines.


My argument is that many every day cameras do not significantly change straight lines. That is demonstrablez

You can post as many images of camera distortion as you want: you seem to be pretending as if I’m arguing that cameras never distort straight lines: that would be a misrepresentation of my position and thus a straw man.

So; there we go. You said it’s a baseless assertion to say some cameras do not distort straight lines to any meanginful degree.

Refuted.

And of course, you completely ignore my last 3-4 posts, where I proved, with source AND example how a lens that does not bend lines sometimes can bend lines.  The images you provided proves absolutely nothing until you take that same lens up and point it at a straight or curved line 300-500 miles away.

Since you more than likely didn't examine the footage, here are some screens that put it to rest, so that we can move forward from this inconclusive "evidence"


Ground level. Straight lines are but yards away, still straight, indicating mostly rectilinear lens.


Convex earth at 230,000 feet.


Concave earth seconds later. The horizon crosses very near to the center in both instances.

Making images of the horizon inconclusive at best. If you honestly want to peruse this any further, I have to tell you, my patience is already stretched, and I can't continue this conversation if you're going to ignore what I say. Cheers on finally providing some images though.

I am trying to make you acknowledge that some lenses do not produce distortion. Not all lenses, just some.

That is an objective fact: and the images I showed are examples of lenses that do not produce distortion.

Posting images that show distortion is not any argument against the objective fact that some images do not.

Are you just not understanding my point?

Can you explain why linking an image of a lense that produces distortion somehow invalidate lenses that objectively take undistorted images?

Your argument makes no sense.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

As you’re going to sit there’s and claim an undistorting lens produces distortion, let’s move on.

You implied that an image that is misinterpreted makes it fake.

I asked whether if I misinterpreted a fish eye image of your face as an accurate representation of what you look like, would that make the image fake.

i thought I explained why; the word “misinterpreted” makes little sense to me in the context of fake (and I explained why).

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

But thank you for confirming that a NASA space shuttle launch to orbit is a valid video

Erfisflat

@Pogue
"Since gravity pulls objects to the center",

This claim is unsupported.

" the Earth would compress back into a spherical object. "

You're assuming the earth has an end. This is another unsupported assumption. 

"Also, since it has to be pulling you to the center, building would have to be built on an angle."

This has never been proved, curvature is never accounted for in construction by any engineer.

" The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.How is this possible on a flat Earth."

Over 1300 meters, if the towers were vertical off the curvature of the earth, there should be a 5 inch seperation, or 127 milimeters. The 41 millimeters is likely due to human error, if it can even proved to be there. Just because a bridge is said to be constructed along the curvature of the earth, doesn't mean the water underneath is curved.