Photos of EARTH
Today I would like to share some beautiful photos of the Earth:
Thank you NASA!
Space, the final frontier... To boldly go where no man has gone before.
It's amazing how big North America was in 2012. Does Africa cover the other half that we can't see?
0
0
0.000
I just love how regular, and almost identical certain storms are, shown in these images.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It's almost as if nature copy and pasted the same clouds over and over, that is soooo weird.
The world map you are showing is inaccurate, just like many other maps.
This could help explain why world maps are wrong:
This one is also cool. It shows the real size of countries compared to others.
https://www.thetruesize.com/
That's true, the world map above is very inaccurate in fact.
They do make some really pretty paintings though.
I really did not know anything about the world map but this is helpful
Thank you
Thanks for proving with these official photos the earth is a globe. For those not following along your hieght above the surface determines your field of view.
No, those photos prove a circular shape, not a globe. Also, increasing your height above a surface (bumpy, flat, globular, etc) would increase your field of view, so I don't think they use a fisheye lens at a low altitude for those photos.
If the Earth was flat then as long as your height cleared the tallest surface features you'd be able to see all of it. Show me that picture.
That's true. Also, I replied to your first message with 3 points above, maybe you missed them.
These photos prove a "circular shape" only if that is the totality of Earth in the photo; Since the FoV is different for each photo, it proves a globe. Your FoV above a flat surface is infinite (or total for non-infinite surfaces). A fish-eye lens is required to take low altitude photos because the FoV is ~140 degree in LEO. Humans can't even appreciate the whole FoV from the ISS without turning their head. You need to be something like 6x higher than the ISS to do so, only 24 humans have been that far out.
If the photos are doctored like you say, than there is no use arguing about them. But to make that claim they would have to be at odds with radial geometry, they aren't. Your post is though.
Take another look at nasa's photos from 2012 and 2013 again.
Move your globe 10-meters away from your face and that land mass appears to cover about 30% or so of what your eye sees.
Move the globe 2-meters from your face next and that land mass will still cover the same 30% or so of what your eye sees.
The land mass will not cover any more or less of the ball that your eye can see if their photos were taken from space.
What's your point? I managed to hide Africa, Asia, Europe, Australasia, most of South America and a lot of ocean on the other side of this globe. With a different lens I could probably make North America look even bigger. Satellite images are not all taken from the same height.
If you have an alternative world model then it needs to account for tides, timezones, seasons, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, gravity, magnetic poles, weather patterns, planetary/lunar orbits, eclipses, radio transmission, long-haul navigation and much more. That's a big ask and the millions of people who study those things would all need to be conspiring if their model were wrong. Scepticism can be good, but when the evidence is overwhelming you have to wonder if you are on the wrong track.
Take another look at nasa's photos from 2012 and 2013 again.
Move your globe 10-meters away from your face and that land mass appears to cover about 30% or so of what your eye sees.
Move the globe 2-meters from your face next and that land mass will still cover the same 30% or so of what your eye sees.
The land mass will not cover any more or less of the ball that your eye can see if their photos were taken from space.
A low Earth orbit (below 2000km) satellite would be a few centimetres above the globe surface, so would need a wide angle lens to see to the 'edge'. It would be seeing less than half the world, so one continent could seem to cover the surface. Simple geometry. Geostationary satellites (36000km) get a different view. You need to know how each photo was taken.
Just enjoy the wonder rather than seeking ulterior motives.
How about this?
2012-2013... Try my globe experiment and you'll see for yourself.
Those pics won't be from the equivalent of 10m away. The Moon is 400,000km out from where Earth is a small ball. 10m would be about half that for my globe and way beyond satellites.
Lenses distort shapes.
As I said, I don't know what you are trying to prove. Is it that NASA fake their images? Russia, China, India, Japan etc would all have to be in on it too. They were not all friends, especially during the 'space race'. Most 'conspiracy theories' crumble under real evidence. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't make it untrue.
Just saying :)
So you're saying they used a fisheye lens to show us a circular object. It would be a lot better if they took a high-altitude photo imo. Show us our world. Show us the upside down ships and stuff.
If the satellite is low then you need a wide angle or fisheye lens to see to the horizon, which will not be half the globe. As I said, any photo needs details of the altitude and lens to make sense of it. I'm not even a space scientist and I can see how it works. It's geometry.
Don't try my example experiment, that's fine. NASA wants to imply that they are showing the ball as it would be seen from space.
I'm waiting...
Me too :) You want to change the subject and not attempt my experiment, that's fine.
Ok, so first off, gravity is still a theory (backed by their magical dark matter theory). What is gravity? Gravity is a neat little word which can be used to describe density, buoyancy and the electro-static force though. Those 3 things are provable.
There is 1 pole, not 2. South surrounds us, that has been proven time and again. Compasses don't lie.
Radio transmissions do not curve around a globe, but high-altitude line-of-sight balloon transceivers (google loon for example) and fiber optic lines can get signals around a globe quite easily.
Tides are difficult to prove since we are not allowed to privately explore antarctica or the north pole land (which is getting removed for some reason from many current maps and globes). Please don't say gravity again. Stick to what we can prove.
The huge battery-powered clock that we live on perfectly explains the seasons, star/planet orbits, long-haul navigation, timezones and more.
Your 'experiment' would not prove anything. If I had the lenses I could do shots to match those pics. You cannot just move a satellite higher. They each have a specific purpose and it's expensive to get them in place.
The theory of gravity has been very well tested and found to work in all cases.
Actually radio can get around the Earth to some extent by bouncing off the ionosphere. That was done before Loon or fibre optics.
Proving tides? They happen and can be seen on any coast. They are also well predicted based on the motion of the Moon. How else is all that water moving up and down?
Eh? Sorry, but you are just making stuff up. A lot of this stuff was known hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before NASA. I'll talk to you about podcasts, but this discussion is pointless if you have set your mind against science.
This already paid-out post was just upvoted by @clareartista.
This post was created to allow this voter the oportunity to still upvote this content IF (s)he deems this content to be high quality.
Please don't use this post to self-upvote. You will get blacklisted if you do. And don't use it to upvote low quality content
This is a hive-archeology proxy comment meant as a proxy for upvoting good content that is past it's initial pay-out window.
Pay-out for this comment is configured as followed:
Let's say your globe is roughly 30cm in diameter or 1 foot. The ISS is less than 1cm away from it. Geostationary orbit is 2 meters... and I agree, moving from 2m to 10m makes almost no difference.
So you're saying they used a fisheye lens to show us a circular object. It would be a lot better if they took a high-altitude photo imo. Show us our world. Show us the upside down ships and stuff.
Please demonstrate more of your vast knowledge of optics.
They are taking a high altitude photo.
You're also implying that mass doesn't cause gravity... so I'm going to continue my search for intelligence elsewhere.
Gravity has nothing to do with how you see continent sizing as per my points above. Try it for yourself. Use your eyes, use a camera, whatever, just try it.
I need to give up too. When someone dismisses centuries of well proven science for some other ideology it is not worth discussing such topics with them. Luckily science still works even if you don't believe in it.
Happy to get into the weeds about some of the holes in our current understanding anytime; and I do believe they are plentiful. memcculloch on twitter and SkyScholar on youtube both tickle my senses. You're right though, we still need to agree on some axioms.
This post wasn't even about a flat earth, or gravity or any of that, I merely wanted to show beautiful images from nasa and get folks to look at them and what they try to convince us of. If you want to get into the flat earth debate though, I know a guy who will give you 3+ Bitcoins if you can prove that we live on a spinning ball. Just go on a podcast with him:
https://cast.garden/c/DITRH
This post wasn't even about a flat earth, or gravity or any of that, I merely wanted to show beautiful images from nasa and get folks to look at them and what they try to convince us of. If you want to get into the flat earth debate though, I know a guy who will give you 3+ Bitcoins if you can prove that we live on a spinning ball. Just go on a podcast with him:
https://cast.garden/c/DITRH
So you imply something is wrong. You seem contrary for its own sake and I have no idea what you might actually believe. Personally I am more willing to accept the findings of scientists across the centuries whose theories (look up what that means in science) have been rigorously tested than some paranoid keyboard warriors. My choice and I have seen nothing from you to persuade me otherwise. Think of me what you will.