Jump to content
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Redorblue last won the day on March 13 2016

Redorblue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

537 Excellent

1 Follower

About Redorblue

  • Rank
    Honorary Poster
  1. I puzzle why the moon has such an effect on the oceans but has no effect on large fresh water bodies - am drawn more to the idea that an electric force causes the tides , seawater being more electrolytic.. Think someone posted this idea on the forum before. Makes more sense to me.
  2. Nice evening for star gazing . Hopefully setting the scope up for a couple o hours viewing tonight. Polaris , which I use to align my scope, is 433 light years away , 22,000,000 miles radius but I can see it with my beady eye . Angular resolution of human beady eye is about 0.02 degrees. Angular size of Polaris , if you make it 10,000 x closer than it's supposed to be, is 0.01degree. Therefore I reckon I have supervision. Doughnut make you wonder.
  3. It's just a lens thing. Barrel distortion occurs with all lenses as far as I am aware. The least distortion occurs across the centre of the lens which is why you need the horizon at the centre whether its a fisheye or wide angle. Maybe the real expensive lenses can minimize the effect but I don't know to what extent. For what it's worth our eyes have the same barrel distortion but our clever brains sort that out for us - I've seen that personally myself when using contact lenses occasionally playing on a snooker table . The far end of the table curved up for me . Took a few seconds for me brain to flatten it out - very weird. Think the tests need to be carried out , even if we don't get to the truth we may be able to judge some things as more plausible than others.
  4. Excellent video . Thanks for posting that .
  5. My opinion is all my own . My opinions were once based upon what I was told I know. Now they are derived from being able to tell the difference between what we call fact and assumption . This is why my beliefs are what they are. At some point scientific theory has to verify its assumptions because everything that follows from unproven assumptions is just fantasy . It may conform to calculation , but not to reality. I am sure scientists don't discuss my views but it is nice to know that there are some that agree with my beliefs somewhat. I will have to look them up. Searching for the truth must involve forming your own opinions or else all you have is other peoples opinions. The video is proof of nothing - it is meaningless unless all data required to carry out calculations under both theories is presented. The two basic assumptions of globe theory remain unverified after 600 years. Plenty is inferred without proof though. Truth isn't decided by how many scientists follow one theory or another - mainstream science is just fashion and incredible dogma . A scientists view that. All scientists need to be sceptics.
  6. Third line down - an assumption of height Next line after - distance to horizon is based on the assumption the earth is a sphere . Your source will give accurate figures for a sphere of radius 3959 mls. It will allow you to work out the angular drop to the horizon of that sphere , but that too will be on the assumption of a spherical earth . Your apex bulge and 318 mile horizon are products of the assumptions. So you will always get what you want out of that method because it's all assumption. You need to know the horizontal angular drop from the camera to the horizon to verify the height and hence your assumption of the height. This is important since you are trying to prove the earth is a sphere.But we are not given this so we can't verify any assumptions . You would also need to know the amount of distortion caused by the lens . Barrel distortion , any horizontal line above or below the centre line of the lens will show curvature. -Distortion will increases towards the edges of the FOV . The theory is good but it is never verified and doesn't fit the reality . The reality is ,that here on earth , we can see cities and mountain ranges across measurable distances and these do not fit the globe earth theory.
  7. Is your horizon across the centre of the lens to reduce distortion? What is the drop to the horizon ? Your distance to the horizon is based on the unverified assumption that the earth is a sphere of radius 3959 miles. The measurement of arc (310 mls) is therefore also an assumption. Has anyone really measured the distances involved. Calculations are useful when based on reality only. Using calculations based on assumptions will always support the assumptions. Use calculations based on actual measurement ,it will bring you closer to the truth.
  8. The point is that you need all information , including angle of drop to the horizon/edge of field of view as well FOV to make an objective analysis. Not shown or mentioned in the video that "proved " the earth was a globe - which was done with misleading use of maths - 4.48 degree of curvature was a fabrication.
  9. Your image is supposedly of a 1948 set of photos montage. The first photo taken was from October 1946 - which I linked Here is a montage of nasa photos from 1947 https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1298.html Looks different from your "restored" image.
  10. The problem of objectivity is not mine. You need your camera horizontal in order to measure the drop to your horizon. Your snapshot shows earth rising up to the right - the camera is not horizontal . You need to use a snapshot showing earth across the centre of the lens. Your field of view under globe earth theory is given by the horizon calculator as a circle of 387 mls radius . A field of view of 47 degrees give you an arc of 310 mls ,each degree 6.6 miles. Then you can measure the drop to the horizon. and the further drop to each side across 23.5 degrees and then extrapolate if you wish and see if it agrees with the predicted curvature under globe earth theory. Then you can send the balloon up further and repeat and you will notice the degree of curvature increase - if the earth is a globe . Flat earth theory - you could use the angle of drop to the flat plane horizon and the height of the camera to calculate the distance to the horizon (field of vision). Then work out each degree's distance. Raise the camera , extend the horizon - you won't get an increase in curvature if the earth is flat. That is an objective view. All trigonometry. All the guy does to get his 4.48 figure is divide 310mls by the theoretical distance of a degree of a circle 24190 mls in circumference. We don't have that in the snapshot. The earth curvature is measured/calculated as the drop 8/12 per mile squared. It's not measured by degrees. That old photo I linked is very ineresting - taken from 340000 feet I believe. I am pointing out that the video does nothing to show any proof of curvature. It's also a poor example of use of basic trigonometry and globe earth theory.
  11. Photo of the earth from 65 miles up taken 1946 from a V2 rocket I believe http://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-first-photo-from-space-13721411/ Notice the curvature? Me neither.
  12. You have a field of view of 47 degrees. You have a circular horizon of radius 387 miles . Your arc of view is 310 miles. That means each of the 47 degrees are 6.6mls in length. If the camera turned around it would trace a circle of 360 x 6.6 miles circumference. No info on the supposed earth curvature contained in that. The horizon distance is a theoretical distance based on the assumption that earth is a sphere of 24,000 mls circumference. If you want to estimate any curvature from those figures above you need to measure the drop between the camera point of view and the horizon at the centre point of view. Then you could estimate the drop due to curvature at the edges. The 4.48 degree of arc mentioned is nonsense , sorry. As the camera rises - on a globe the curvature should begin to increase with height . On a flat plain your circle of view will show less curvature with height.
  13. 119,630 Feet and No Curvature

    I'm not saying the sunlight is casting the circle although it may well be - just my thoughts on the limits of our vision. Those very slight curves at large altitudes - not good for the globe imo. Didn't have time to watch the whole vid through. I did one o those thought experiments lol. G'night God bless
  14. 119,630 Feet and No Curvature

    Nice video.Just a few thoughts on seeing a slight curve. On a flat plane your vision is limited to whatever atmospheric conditions allow ( due to dispersion/diffusion). At the limits ,say 5miles for example , you will be at the centre of a field of view of 5 mls radius. I think that as you rise up to 22 mls your field of view is a circle of 420+ mls radius according to globe theory , maybe more/less on a flat plane but still limited by atmospheric conditions. I think that may explain the very slight curve viewed. I've seen a video where someone photo shops the atmosphere out on high altitude film to leave a curved earth , but imo it's just a normal view of a field of view limited by the atmosphere - its bound to be a circle , not a proof of curvature. Higher altitudes should lead to progressively pronounced curves as the earth falls away all around , but we don't see that. The curve is always very slight unless we use the old fisheye. Hope that makes sense. More evidence that fits flat earth theory better than the globe. Edit - yes that's the video I watched earlier.
  15. Nothing to do with FE. It's about the work of professors Allais, Jeverdan , Rusu , Antonescu and others which show the model of the universe used by mainstream science does not correspond to reality .
  1. Jump To Top