RE: Photos of EARTH
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
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.