Can anyone link a video of anything that has gone high enough to film the curvature of the earth that does NOT use a fisheye lens??
>>8198595
If you do not trust the images by any of the numerous space and aeronautics agencies, I don't know what to say to you.
You seem to assume it's all false rather than actually approaching this with an open and curious mind, in which case, what's the point in responding?
here ya go
>>8198603
oh my bad here vido
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yJn-5hpU94
>>8198595
Climb a mountain past 15k, you can pretty much see it with your naked eye. Remember, past that point and into the dead zone, most fatalities happen on the descent.
>>8198603
>fist, I didn't say what I believe so don't assume
Then you are either ignorant or your beliefs are not internally consistent. I never said anything about what you believe, but I can say that now that you brought it up, you either want confirmation about the earth being round or you're looking for arguments against a person that thinks the earth is flat.
I'm just saying: if you think all those thousands of hours of video and millions of pics from tens/100s of agencies are not enough, I don't know if there's anything left to say.
See the proportions of the solar panels and countries and compare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njCDZWTI-xg
That's not really a fish eye-lens. There are other streams too, and some newer satellites with live feed. If that's not good enough, I really do not know what is. That's what I meant with my post.
>>8198614
Can you actually make it out at 15k? Seems doubtful to me, but if you can show me, I'll believe it.
>>8198618
Dude, Everest is like almost 30 thousand feet and cripples climb it now, it's a disgusting tourist mecca of discarded oxy bottles and bodies that don't decompose.
I've been up a little past 10 and I swear you can see it with your own eyes on a clear day. It's doesn't translate without a fisheye is what I'm thinking. You can go to 15 without oxygen if you have good lungs but you are already in the danger zone, also it's pretty much always winter from there up.
>>8198632
Well, I guess I'll have to see it some time then.
I've grown up near mountains so lungs are not an issue. There's just no mountains that high where I grew up.
>>8198618
> live earth video shows the earth is a sphere
Flatcucks btfo
>>8198638
odd how it's the only thing they can find without a fisheye though
>>8198646
How would you ever know that any other pic posted is fisheye
> coz they show curvature
kek
>>8198656
I'm talking about videos silly
>>8198667
How would you ever know that any other video posted is fisheye dummy
>>8198673
objects distorting based on where they are in the frame?.. very simple
>>8198677
yeah...like the curvature of the earth amirite ?
>>8198677
And I suppose you will assume that effects due to distance and perspective are instead due to distortion by the lens?
>>8198646
Fish-eye lens is not really the catch-all term you seem to think it is, especially to anyone who remembers their high school/freshman uni level physics and optics.
Obviously, some cameras are quite complex with their lens systems, and making a durable camera without making the fish-eye lens effect is difficult.
And as >>8198618 said, there are more examples than just that one. People are too lazy to even look enough to find even that one. It's also simply the best example for anyone who is skeptical to the point of stupidity.
Look through the SpaceX Eutelsat/ABS feed. I get that you're lazy so skip to 23:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLNmtUEvI5A
If it's hard to believe, look through the entire feed then. You can even see a few points where the fish-eye lens makes a dip like pic related as in works against the curvature, yet it's still curved like you'd expect of a round. I made the line very generous towards the assumption that there's no curve, and you can still barely make out the curve, despite the added effect of the lens lessening the curve.
>>8198677
what is optics
>>8198614
>Climb a mountain past 15k
highest mountain is <9k
>>8198595
is this the thread were you say "fisheye" every time you spot curvature?
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
>>8198698
This is the thread where uneducated fucks don't understand optics and the fact that their own goddamn vision is "fisheye" if "fisheye" means "not orthographic".
>>8198692
Obviously feet in that case.
While using SI units is preferable, context should show that it's ft.
>>8198687
Well there is clearly no lens distortion that would account for such a strong curvature and it's clealy not flat.
>>8198705
Pretty much this.
The "fish-eye lens" argument stops working at such high altitudes. Just the fact that people aren't calling it a convex lens is pretty indicative that nobody that knows their optics is making the argument.
>>8198711
enlighten me
>>8198716
I'm not going to tech you how lenses work. That's the job of your educational system, (or the person who homeschools you, if that's the case)
Go here: http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/physics/concave-lenses-convex-lenses.html
and play around with lenses and geometry if you must confirm.
>>8199418
But why?
>>8199418
Just let it die
Light bends to the left in positive refraction index materials. Mirages and that haze on the top of car hoods are caused by refraction. The bending of a straw in a glass of water is from refraction.
The speed of light is relative to the E the photon is moving through. As the photon moves, it transfers energy from the High-E to the Low-E, and so any emitted photon has to change it's wavelength as it moves. As it does so, it shifts to the left, so that it constantly takes a slanted trajectory through space.
Over long periods of time, the photon will tend to spiral. If it's below a certain energy, it'll never escape the gravity well. Since it's constantly losing energy, if it doesn't break the gravity well to begin with, it'll wind up back at it's emitter, forming a closed timelike loop.
From the Sun, light takes a curved path towards the Earth, where it bounces off the surface along another curved path to your eyeball. The eye can only see differences in light intensity - it can't reconstruct the paths the light took. Binocular vision can be used to emulate the difference by juxtaposing how a single source decollimates into two photons which hit two different eyes. But some people like myself have nystagmus, so we can't.
What the eye sees has no relationship to what's really there. Instead, we need to look at where things come and go.
Antarctica and Greenland have the highest average elevations of all continents, and would get higher if they lost their ice sheets. If we imagine the Earth on it's side with it's poles pointed horizontally, we see that the poles are above everything else.
Water vapor wafts up to the poles, and ice falls down from them. As well, the Sun moves from the north to the south - almost as if it was moving along a bridge between the two poles. Traditional astronomy supposed a planet in front of the Sun that caused solar eclipses, and which could also move around the Sun to block it's light.
The universe is shaped like this picture.
>>8199702
timecube : the post
>>8198701
People shouldnt have to assume that you're using ass-backwards units
>>8198595
ITT: Ive never been in an airplane and youtube videos are telling me naysa is lying
>>8198599
Perhaps OP can take a look at the ISS. Even in cities it is bright enough to see. If you have a good enougj tracking telescope you can take pictures of it.
>>8198595
This is extremely difficult to find. Even all the videos of balloons going up with toys and cameras strapped to them have this massive distortion.
Every single video I've ever seen has the curvature of the horizon curve both convex and concave depending on where it is from the center of the screen. (pic related)
>>8198599
Talk about assuming. What is up with your crackpot tinfoil shit, anon?
>>8198690
Something my camera adjusts the distortion for so that everything looks normal.
![0a970c3107524cd42bbcfaba5316a707[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QBPT4E6.jpg "0a970c3107524cd42bbcfaba5316a707[1].jpg")
>>8200257
Not that I'm for flat earth or anything but thats a bad argument. Because even if you go above the clouds, you're not gonna see the curvature.
You need to be way up there near the jet stream altitude to barely see any curvature.
>>8200357
But /pol/ doesn't believe in flat earth, dumb SJW redditards do. Was that you trying to false flag or something ?
