paul's got wright Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 if you don't know what happens when someone jumps of a cliff, then that's strange you have to ask me. or you were not being genuine? little names sausages look at ye post again x Why do you assume I don't know? Show me where I've said that. I haven't asked you what happens. I've asked you how you know what happens. That shouldn't be a difficult question to comprehend. Have I used any words that you don't understand? i don't. i know the same way gerry knows what will happen. little humour between like minds as an afront to tatlock's humorous jibe. if you don't know how i know what gerry and albert know then i don't know what else to say to you other than are you being genuine that you don't know what will happen? if it's not a hard question to comprehend then it's not a hard question to answer so why are you asking something so easy to know the answer to? no x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Well that's cleared that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 http://www.principia-scientific.org/breaking-nasa-u-turn-admits-global-warming-bias-on-sun-s-key-role.html more research info x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 ... If the camera isn't vertical then it gets hugely complex. The camera will see a curve, and I'm trying to work out the maths to its form and radius - I'm not even convinced it will have a constant radius - its probably a conic section sine wave, but as well as the pure geometry you've got huge issues with lense effects. Hee hee, I should have trusted my first intuition and not edited it to be a sine wave. A normal type camera, not a school rotary one I discussed earlier, will usually result in the horizon appearing in the form of a hyperbola on a photograph, if it is about vertical. As you look down at a steeper angle hyperbola will alter until the horizon will eventually become a part of an ellipse while if you look directly down it will be a circle if your field of view is wide enough/you are high enough up! All these shapes are conic sections known for millenia. Wiki, for once does a pretty good job of explaining it: link This image doesn't really do the situation justice, but might help explain it: Here the two cones are the same size, while in the case of a camera the top cone will be tiny - the rays inside the camera - while the bottom cone huge - the rays travelling from the horizon to the pin hole lens, but the basic geometry is correct with the apex of the two cones being the pin hole camera's pin hole. The bottom cone is made up of the light rays going from the horizon (the circle at the bottom of the cone) to the pin hole, while the top cone is the path of the light rays in the camera - obviously these wont be a full cone and only the light rays within the camera would be relevant. The flat upper hyperbola in the diagram is the image the horizon will project on the film/camera sensor. It is a bit of maths to work out its broad dimensions. Gerry - you've indicated you don't have a problem with doing some maths. Well then, do you fancy doing some then? Given a camera with a focal length f - ie the horizontal distance from the pin hole (the apex of the cones) to the film, what are the dimensions of the hyperbola (height and width) if the camera's field of view is 50 degrees, the height of the camera above the ground is h, and the radius of the earth is R. Are you up for it? It will be very interesting seeing how much of the curvature of the horizon in the high altitude photos is down the lens effects and how much to the genuine projection of the horizon onto the film. Gerry et al, do you agree with this analysis? I've no idea how big a curve to expect, but I'm pretty sure I've the maths skillz to give the dimensions, but if it does show that a the horizon will be shown as a curve for a reasonable range of camera positions will you accept this as evidence of the horizon being due to a spherical earth or not? Geometry is a simplification of our world which enables us to see the form of our world - are you willing to accept some pretty simply geometrical results? I am. Fancy doing the maths to see if we agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 Go for it china, show us how it is done... I don't know about you but I am not sure of the optics or the camera used in the Indy test video,will it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share Posted May 2, 2015 It may be better to keep it simple as when you blind us with science we seem to accept it without question, somewhat (blinded by science) and as we have seen it does not always hold to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Waste of time and effort China...you might as well explain it your cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 If you notice I asked Gerry to try to do it himself. The problem is he rejects the scientific method - producing a simplified model of reality and thinking what predictions this model makes about reality and then going and seeing how reality looks compared to those predictions. The results don't have to be exact - the model is an approximation but they need to be useful. Understanding how the horizon curves if there was no optical distortion is useful. It allows you to critique photos and know how distorted they are. Gerry as has been continually pointed out refuses to accept the scientific method. His model of a flat earth with a flat sun produces lots of predictions about sun angles, the position of the sun at sunrise and sunset, what twilight is like etc etc. Gerry just ignores all this or arm waves. Gerry, are you intellectually honest enough to admit that your model fails in all these areas? And seriously go and do the maths so you can actually be informed about how distorted pictures actually are. Or are you just going to sit around waiting for someone else to do it for you, or even worse ignore the results and pretend they have no relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 well the topic has gone a bit flat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Also, if the earth is flat, how do you explain volcanoes? Where is lava coming from and why, with such heat, isn't it leaking at the bottom instead of being propelled upward? Bump for Gerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted May 3, 2015 Author Share Posted May 3, 2015 After working out the approximate distance to the horizon on the below picture and then from that approximating a length of the horizon in the below picture (approx 374 miles for a normal camera), I decided that a 374 mile section of a 25000 mile circumference ball would look pretty flat in my opinion, to see a distinct curve we need more height. As for volcanoes and lava flow, I have not looked at it, However I am looking at the climate differences between the poles and in particular average temperature differences between the poles, this is proving very interesting, think about the flat earth model and how the centre (n pole) would receive more sunlight as opposed to the edge of the disc, i.e. same amount of energy but spread over a greater land mass the further south you go. Take New Zealand with its much cooler nights in the summer than ours and where the switch from night to day, or twilight is much quicker than here, I would expect this on a disc with a sun moving around as described by the flat earthers, from tropic to tropic between summer and winter solstice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Bump for Gerry. Indeed. On the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Sorry to resurrect this thread which seemed to be dying a natural death. However, there was some mention, maybe obliquely, about the smoothness of the earth as a sphere. I recalled hearing that it is smoother than a snooker ball, and here's the link. But, although it's smoother, its oblateness means it would pass more as a bowls ball than a snooker ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Sorry to resurrect this thread which seemed to be dying a natural death. However, there was some mention, maybe obliquely, about the smoothness of the earth as a sphere. I recalled hearing that it is smoother than a snooker ball, and here's the link. But, although it's smoother, its oblateness means it would pass more as a bowls ball than a snooker ball. That just sounds like a load of bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Sorry to resurrect this thread which seemed to be dying a natural death. However, there was some mention, maybe obliquely, about the smoothness of the earth as a sphere. I recalled hearing that it is smoother than a snooker ball, and here's the link. But, although it's smoother, its oblateness means it would pass more as a bowls ball than a snooker ball. That just sounds like a load of bollocks. Which leads me to wonder, "is the Earth is smoother than a bollock?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.