First of all you misspelled "plane" and then had the nerve to out it in all caps. This whole flat earth shit is.l the most fuck faced bullshit ever and you dudes are followers. The people who came.up with this flat earth THEORY has never been to space themselves so how could anything they say have any validity?
Rocket science is not something you can figure out with "common sense" and often can seem counterintuitive. For example in the Van Allen Belt most of the radiation (Alpha particles) can be blocked with paper, however 2nd most prevalent type (Beta) needs shielding such as foil paper, in the same manner, certain radio signals are blocked with the same aluminum foil. The reason why they used this foil-type material, is because it works, it's cheap, and also very light, sure it may look flimsy, but for what it's worth it sure gets the job done.I dont believe the united states landed humans on the moon because theres no way in hell the US has the technology to fly 500,000 miles to the moon and back on a single tank of gas on a fucking rocket developed in the 1960's. Plus all 5 moon landings happened under the Nixon Administration. An Administration not known for its honesty. Plus here is a picture of the moon lander
The temperatures of the moon range from -100 to -300 Celsius. Does that aluminum foil looking bullshit look like it was made to withstand those freezing temperatures? We're told the astronauts lived in this thing for 11 days while on the moon. Then magically this piece of shit flew back up and docked with the mother ship hovering 100 miles above the moon floor. A feat never tested on earth but they managed to successfully dock on the first try. I can go on and on but the moon landing was fake
dude you never been to outer space either lol i mean all you know is what nasa shows you and tell you lol and for the record my boy PLAIN is the word i meant to use and yes my dude its spelled correctly.flat earth isnt a theory its fact.when you in a PLANE what you see ????FLAT the horizon is at eye level my dude and you trying to trash me cause i believe in soething you dont is typicl for negros on here lol thats all yall do is talk smack and bully the ones that cant talk for themselves but you know what? you dont have to read what i say period cause the insults and all that you WAS trying to do didnt work i will still speak the truth on the PLAIN we live on.
Where's the video of this?
I told you in this very same thread that this is what you do.
Where is the video of the infrared camera that can see 1000 MILES away of FLAT SURFACE?
Don't answer with anything else but this. EXACTLY THIS.
It's Flat.
The higher you ascend, the LOWER the horizon should be on a spherical earth. It should not rise to eye level.
The Rocky Mountains are not a flat surface as you claimed. They are 14,440 feet tall.
Why didn't they fly to the edge? I've been to the edge many of times.
Flat Earthers claim refraction explains why the Sun always looks the same size no matter how far away it is but say refraction doesn't exist when it explains why you can see things beyond the curvature of the Earth lmao.
Got to cherry pick facts to flerf.
Why are you people so fixated on NASA? You realize there are hundreds of agencies/universities that can make these same measurements independently. The spherical nature of Earth has been known for thousands of years with pretty good estimates of its size.
Seeing clouds from what they claim is 1,000 miles away and calling them the Rocky Mountains does not verify anything. Flying towards the Rocky Mountains and pointing at them does not negate that fact. They could have pointed to some random car and said "See! I told you you could see a car from a 1,000 miles away". Except we never saw it. We only saw clouds.
can you point me to the infrared vid you are talking aboutGoddamn man?!?
I never said refraction doesn't exist, but in infrared footage REFRACTION is not flattening out the ball earth so you can see things 1000 miles away where you see pure flatness AND the horizon is STILL AT EYE LEVEL!!. Talk about a goddamn STRETCH!!
Give it up bruh, you can't refract your way out of this, this muthafucka is FLAT! Case CLOSED!!!
Goddamn man?!?
I never said refraction doesn't exist, but in infrared footage REFRACTION is not flattening out the ball earth so you can see things 1000 miles away where you see pure flatness AND the horizon is STILL AT EYE LEVEL!!. Talk about a goddamn STRETCH!!
Give it up bruh, you can't refract your way out of this, this muthafucka is FLAT! Case CLOSED!!!
flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com
|
| Pic Gaspard/Grand Ferrand from Pic de Finestrelles in the Pyrénées, image by Marc Bret |
Pic Gaspard (3880m) @ 443 km = 2*arctan(3.880/2/443) = 0.5018° = 461 pixels
|
| Walter Bislin Horizon Rendering Tool (link) |
|
| View of Grand Ferrand from Finestrelles via udeuschle panorama generator |
This completely destroys your view, but you'll just respond with laight emojis.
Pic Gaspard (3880m)/Grand Ferrand (2758m) from Pic de Finestrelles (2826m) in the Pyrénées
I have some new toys to share in this installment of 'Yes, the Earth really is Curved even though you can see one distant mountain peak from...
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Pic Gaspard (3880m)/Grand Ferrand (2758m) from Pic de Finestrelles (2826m) in the Pyrénées
I have some new toys to share in this installment of 'Yes, the Earth really is Curved even though you can see one distant mountain peak from another', so this should be fun!
This time we're going to look at a view of two distant mountains from Pic de Finestrelles (2826m) in the Pyrénées, taken by Marc Bret of Beyond Horizons (see also the Flickr album).
Pic Gaspard (3880m) in the Massif des Écrins range at a distance of 443 km.
Grand Ferrand (2758m) at a distance of 392.48 km.
Our view is right around 42.414466°N, 2.132839°E at about 2826 meters elevation, looking right along the coast.
Pic Gaspard/Grand Ferrand from Pic de Finestrelles in the Pyrénées, image by Marc Bret
The EXIF metadata shows this image was taken by a Panasonic DMC-FZ72 with a focal length of 215mm -- given the 5.62 crop factor of the 1/2.3" sensor in this camera, this gives you a 35mm equivalent focal length of 1200mm giving a full frame view of 1.644° wide and 1.215° high.
Since 1521 x 1014 isn't the exact same aspect ratio as the size of image this camera shoots it's likely that some small amount of cropping has taken place.
To double check this we can draw lines from our viewpoint to each peak and we find that, at the distance of Ferrand (392.48 km), our lines are about 1.7 km apart. This gives us an angle of approximately 0.24817° -- if we then apply that over the full 1521 pixels of the image we get an estimate of 1.63° wide -- very close to the 1.644° we expect so let's just use 1.644° / 1.215° as our field of view.
Now we're in a very good position to size the mountain and compare it to our photo.
First, we need the Law of Perspective, which says that the angular size (α) of an object whose height perpendicular to our line of sight (g) at distance (r) is:
α = 2*arctan(g/2/r)
Excellent - we just need to know the height and the distance.
Pic Gaspard (3880m) @ 443 km = 2*arctan(3.880/2/443) = 0.5018° = 461 pixels
Grand Ferrand (2758m) @ 392.48 km = 2*arctan(2.758/2/392.48) = 0.4026° = 375 pixels
Just for scale, one-half a degree is the apparent size of the Moon, so we're talking about a pinkie-at-arms-length size -- but that that is the size those mountains should appear at the distances they are from this observer.
So we can mark those out on the image now as the full height of the mountain at that distance.
As expected, the "sea-level" bottom for the more distant mountain (Gaspard) is lower than the closer mountain (Ferrand) and since it's a larger mountain the total apparent size is larger even though it's slightly further away.
So please do not try to tell me we're seeing the "whole mountain" here.
Now, Walter Bislin has an amazing calculator that will let you place objects in the world and includes a very advanced refraction module (which I left at defaults except to set the 'surveying standard' 7/6th refraction, about 14%. This is very modest amount of refraction and since the photographer tells you that this is very rare to be able to see this, the actual refraction is likely greater than shown here.
Here is Ferrand and Gaspard on a Globe model vs a Flat Earth model. Notice how the Globe model correctly shows just the distant peaks with Ferrand peak above Gaspard even though Ferrand is shorter. When you put these two mountains on a flat plane then Gaspard clearly stands taller.
There is no contest here, the Globe best fits the observations and really ONLY fits the observations. If we could see the entire mountain, even at this great distance with perspective, they would stand vastly larger than seen here.
Walter Bislin Horizon Rendering Tool (link)
Another fun tool that comes from the Beyond Horizons page is a 'panorama' rendering tool that will label the mountain peaks. I've used PeakFinder in the past but this one seems to be more full featured. Here is our approximate view:
View of Grand Ferrand from Finestrelles via udeuschle panorama generator
So this view comports with the Globe model extremely well and utterly destroys the Flat Earth model. The problem is that Flat Earthers do not how to do basic estimations like how big something would be in an image (if you could see the whole thing).
