In photography, a rectilinear lens is a photographic lens that yields images where straight features, such as the edges of walls of buildings, appear with straight lines, as opposed to being curved. In other words, it is a lens with little or no barrel or pincushion distortion.
But do you know with 100% certainty that the earth is spherical? Because most people have not been high up enough to see it for themselves with their own eyes (if its even possible to). We are indoctrinated into globe earth and space and big bang and evolution from a very young age...
to be perfectly honest, there is the possibility it is somewhat bigger than what consensus says. However, MUCH bigger? I don't think there is a great argument for such hyperbole.
I just find it funny that it starts flipping at 220.000 feet, then goes for another 70.000 feet, making it all the way up to 290.000 feet.
If anyone is interested in seeing how the fish eye effect can be removed by special editing software in post production, here is a link to how it was done 3 years ago.
I'm sure you've noticed, given your keen observational skills, that the edited footage in the second half of the video has a stretched, more pixelated look to the original and has greatly increased linear jitters.
I think we must question the degree to which this youtuber (or whoever he stole the footage from) has "corrected" the image. How did he decide how much distortion to "remove" or "correct"? He gives zero details. How much fish eye effect was present in the original film? Does he know what exact type of lens was used? Was it a careful calculation to compensate for the exact amount of distortion in the lens...?
Or did he just keep going till the horizon looked flat?
My guess is it's the latter, especially given all the Flat Earth links he lists in the description, where he really should have detailed his calculations.
Wrong. The information in the description is exactly the same. He doesn't demonstrate that he knew the measurements of the "fish-eye" lens that he is "correcting" to look like "35mm", nor does he demonstrate that such "corrections" better reflect reality and do not result in further distortion, which given the state of the footage in the 2nd half of the video, they clearly seem to.
Furthermore, the "35mm" number refers to film negative, not a camera lens measurement:
He stats this in a comment in the video, if it is of any help.
Any good video editing software can remove the fisheye. I use Adobe After Effects for film editing and what was used for this video. Gopro's own Software now provides a tool to remove the fisheye effect. So anyone can do this.
His talk of 35mm shows he has no clue what he's doing and has simply edited the footage to make the horizon flat throughout.
When you do such auto effects on Adobe software you are asked what lens was used to video the original footage, and there are many lenses to choose from all with different measurements. Based on their measurements the algo will make adjustments. If you don't know the original lens measurements, and I doubt this clown did, you can do it arbitrarily instead of choosing an exact measurement. This is probably what he did, arbitrarily edited the horizon to be flat throughout.
There are so many ways to approach this one, but at the end of the day it is all a red herring predicated upon a widely educated mistake.
The horizon does not curve at any altitude, because the horizon is not a physical location but an optical illusion. It is the limit of our vision, and presents as a perfectly flat horizontal line that surrounds us 360 degrees. The apparent curve seen in videos/pictures like this is always due to distortion (though the lens itself is only one source).
Because it is not (as we are mistaught) the “edge of the world”, it does not pertain to the shape of it - regardless of what that shape is. It’s as silly as saying that rainbows prove the curved shape of the world (or dome), and for very similar reasons.
The earth and its shape are down here! There is no sense (or science) in trying to get further away from it in order to measure that shape! That literally makes the shape harder to measure and science requires measurement (empiricism) not merely looking! There is very good reason for this - because what we see is often not what is. In the words of obi wan, “Your eyes can deceive you; don’t trust them”.
It’s all red herring and distraction. It’s something you have to get beyond if you want to earnestly penetrate the subject.
You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings, to gain increased knowledge about the location below that vantage point and it's surroundings, knowledge you may not so easily glean from the ground. Have you ever been orienteering? Do you get lost often?
You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings
It is unscientific to merely look, yes. Science (empiricism) requires measurement - for very good reason. It is not easier to measure things as you get farther and farther away from them.
It is both stupid and unscientific to go away from the earth, high in the sky, to measure the shape of the world. That is not the same thing as your misinterpretation, no.
Not exactly. The first step of the scientific method is observe, not merely look. In empiricism (aka science), observation means measurement.
The scientific method also has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The scientific method is not used to establish/determine natural/scientific law, like the shapes of various things - which we are discussing.
Besides, when you properly know what the horizon is - the whole line of reasoning becomes foolish. Even if the optical illusion of the horizon curved, it wouldn’t establish the shape of the world. The entire thing is a red herring.
One of the reasons that repeated and rigorous measurement is required in science is because what we see is often not what is - especially from a great distance.
Measurement cannot exist without looking. Looking is the essence of measurement. Obtaining a view with more information (ie. going higher to see more) is going to improve your over all measurement determinations, not subtract from them. Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
Looking may lead to measuring, but no - it is not the essence of it.
Is it harder to measure without eyes, sure - it’s harder to live without them. Are eyes necessary to measure (or live)? of course not - don’t be silly!
Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
You seem to be overly fixated on minutia here. The main point is that the horizon is an optical illusion, not the “edge of the world” which we could study/measure/look at to determine its shape.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
A blind person's ability to measure is greatly inhibited by their lack of lack of vision. The physical distances and shapes of things that they can accurately measure are very few and require direct physical contact, and/or memory from when they had vision, and /or information and tools given to them or created by people who have functioning vision. Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion, including how the horizon appears flat from lower down. I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going. Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
You only believe this because of your bias that what i am saying has to be bullshit. You cannot earnestly or objectively evaluate with such a bias, and in reality it is a conditioned response to protect your worldview.
Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
It isn’t contrarian to point out that measuring and vision are separate and distinct. Measurement is done with many tools, none of which are the human eye (for good reason!).
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion
No, you’re being silly again. I never said that everything was an optical illusion, i only said that the horizon was. Did you really misunderstand me, or do you just want to for rhetorical and rationalizational purpose? If you really think i said, or implied, that everything the human eye sees is an endless optical illusion, please quote what i said which made you think that so that we can discuss it.
I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going
I share your loathing for sophistry. There are few i dislike more than the simulationists/holosexuals. Perish the thought! I’m talking about demonstrably observable (i.e. measurable!), manifest objective reality and science.
The horizon is an optical illusion, not a place. We were mistaught about it. No bullshit, no holographic simulation, no “everything is just an optical illusion created by your mind” - hippy dippy nonsense.
Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
And you will always presume/imagine it is so unless you take the time to understand the logic and reason! Asking questions would be a good first step! Assuming you already understand, and making erroneous statements based on your flawed assumptions is not a good way to learn about the perspectives of others.
How is a measurement tool used if not by looking at it? They are made to be read by the human eye. They don't work by themselves, they were not created by magic or AI, or maybe you think they are?
The horizon is a word that denotes where the the land meets the sky from our perspective, by sight. It is a natural boundary between 2 distinct media that can be seen with the eye. Sometimes it's hazy to see but we understand it to be there all the same. Think of it as similar to the separation between land and water you see in nature - the shore line, but also what you can't see: river, lake and sea beds are where the water stops and land begins. Or even with liquid in a container, the meniscus. Molecular boundaries.
The illusory part that is probably confusing you (unless your just being willfully ignorant) is that these boundaries are not a consistent shape, they move and change, with the horizon since the surface is irregular and can change over time, and the sky or atmosphere (or water, liquids in general) is malleable and transparent, for example. Water and gas and earth are different forms of matter, different molecule structures, though there are mixes like water vapor. They have different properties and behaviors. We give names to the "lines" where they meet in nature that we see most regularly: the horizon, the shoreline, the coastline etc. That is what these words, like horizon, denote: not an illusion. It's not a mystery or a lie. You've simply misunderstood what it means.
If your next reply requires more explanations of fairly basic, observable facts like this you're not getting it unless you start paying me for my time.
Chessmate Flat Earthers!
Toldja it was hallow!!!
Curved cube earth confirmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectilinear_lens
Aliens: Holy chit, they're shooting at us!
Gerbil: craps in his flight suit
German rocket scientists: ve need zeese amateurs fur zee assault on London!
V1's propulsion is easier to build than most governments would prolly prefer:Der Antrieb der V1 ist einfacher zu bauen, als es den meisten Regierungen lieb ist: https://www.instructables.com/Make-a-Pulse-jet-engine-Scanned-from-1958-plans/scaled down for a go-kart:Verkleinert für ein Go-Kart https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAKekhmTRaYIn our business this is what's referred to as a smoking gun.
Thx for posting. Wonder if they needed special permission to conduct launch?
Oh, okay? Anything conspiracy related? ufos? Nothing? Can we have real discussion here which is worth our time?
But do you know with 100% certainty that the earth is spherical? Because most people have not been high up enough to see it for themselves with their own eyes (if its even possible to). We are indoctrinated into globe earth and space and big bang and evolution from a very young age...
be the change, young padawan. post the content you'd like to see.
If there is curvature there, the earth should be much bigger than we are told
to be perfectly honest, there is the possibility it is somewhat bigger than what consensus says. However, MUCH bigger? I don't think there is a great argument for such hyperbole.
I just find it funny that it starts flipping at 220.000 feet, then goes for another 70.000 feet, making it all the way up to 290.000 feet.
If anyone is interested in seeing how the fish eye effect can be removed by special editing software in post production, here is a link to how it was done 3 years ago.
https://youtu.be/zppIg8jp9aA
Edit: Original link.
https://youtu.be/bMFOtW-FagA
I'm sure you've noticed, given your keen observational skills, that the edited footage in the second half of the video has a stretched, more pixelated look to the original and has greatly increased linear jitters.
I think we must question the degree to which this youtuber (or whoever he stole the footage from) has "corrected" the image. How did he decide how much distortion to "remove" or "correct"? He gives zero details. How much fish eye effect was present in the original film? Does he know what exact type of lens was used? Was it a careful calculation to compensate for the exact amount of distortion in the lens...?
Or did he just keep going till the horizon looked flat?
My guess is it's the latter, especially given all the Flat Earth links he lists in the description, where he really should have detailed his calculations.
Right. Here is the original video of how we can remove the Fisheye Camera effect that is seen in 99% of all Space Agency footage.
https://youtu.be/bMFOtW-FagA
Actually 6 years old, from 2017.
Wrong. The information in the description is exactly the same. He doesn't demonstrate that he knew the measurements of the "fish-eye" lens that he is "correcting" to look like "35mm", nor does he demonstrate that such "corrections" better reflect reality and do not result in further distortion, which given the state of the footage in the 2nd half of the video, they clearly seem to.
Furthermore, the "35mm" number refers to film negative, not a camera lens measurement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film
A camera that takes 35mm film can often use different lenses of a variety of sizes and types. Including, indeed, a fish eye lens, ironically enough.
It's funny that, as a filmmaker (as he describes himself) he is not aware of such things.
He stats this in a comment in the video, if it is of any help.
Any good video editing software can remove the fisheye. I use Adobe After Effects for film editing and what was used for this video. Gopro's own Software now provides a tool to remove the fisheye effect. So anyone can do this.
His talk of 35mm shows he has no clue what he's doing and has simply edited the footage to make the horizon flat throughout.
When you do such auto effects on Adobe software you are asked what lens was used to video the original footage, and there are many lenses to choose from all with different measurements. Based on their measurements the algo will make adjustments. If you don't know the original lens measurements, and I doubt this clown did, you can do it arbitrarily instead of choosing an exact measurement. This is probably what he did, arbitrarily edited the horizon to be flat throughout.
fuck flat earthers: they denigrate everything here.
You wanna distract people from facts like 9/11 and pizzagate: you just signed yourself up on the red team. ( burn ).
Ah, the classics.
There are so many ways to approach this one, but at the end of the day it is all a red herring predicated upon a widely educated mistake.
The horizon does not curve at any altitude, because the horizon is not a physical location but an optical illusion. It is the limit of our vision, and presents as a perfectly flat horizontal line that surrounds us 360 degrees. The apparent curve seen in videos/pictures like this is always due to distortion (though the lens itself is only one source).
Because it is not (as we are mistaught) the “edge of the world”, it does not pertain to the shape of it - regardless of what that shape is. It’s as silly as saying that rainbows prove the curved shape of the world (or dome), and for very similar reasons.
The earth and its shape are down here! There is no sense (or science) in trying to get further away from it in order to measure that shape! That literally makes the shape harder to measure and science requires measurement (empiricism) not merely looking! There is very good reason for this - because what we see is often not what is. In the words of obi wan, “Your eyes can deceive you; don’t trust them”.
It’s all red herring and distraction. It’s something you have to get beyond if you want to earnestly penetrate the subject.
"Don't trust your lying eyes, goy! There is no truth but mine; everything else is fake"
No, we don’t just “trust our eyes” in science. That would be stupid.
Notably, this “just trust your eyes” position is used by many flat earthers to “prove” the world is flat.
Your contrived/fabricated statement becomes :
“Don’t trust your lying eyes! The world only looks flat, but is actually spherical because there is no truth but mine; everything else is fake”
You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings, to gain increased knowledge about the location below that vantage point and it's surroundings, knowledge you may not so easily glean from the ground. Have you ever been orienteering? Do you get lost often?
It is unscientific to merely look, yes. Science (empiricism) requires measurement - for very good reason. It is not easier to measure things as you get farther and farther away from them.
It is both stupid and unscientific to go away from the earth, high in the sky, to measure the shape of the world. That is not the same thing as your misinterpretation, no.
Objective visible observations are part of scientific method
Not exactly. The first step of the scientific method is observe, not merely look. In empiricism (aka science), observation means measurement.
The scientific method also has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The scientific method is not used to establish/determine natural/scientific law, like the shapes of various things - which we are discussing.
Besides, when you properly know what the horizon is - the whole line of reasoning becomes foolish. Even if the optical illusion of the horizon curved, it wouldn’t establish the shape of the world. The entire thing is a red herring.
One of the reasons that repeated and rigorous measurement is required in science is because what we see is often not what is - especially from a great distance.
Measurement cannot exist without looking. Looking is the essence of measurement. Obtaining a view with more information (ie. going higher to see more) is going to improve your over all measurement determinations, not subtract from them. Used in combination with "ground knowledge" it is only going to improve accuracy.
You can’t really think that.
Looking may lead to measuring, but no - it is not the essence of it.
Is it harder to measure without eyes, sure - it’s harder to live without them. Are eyes necessary to measure (or live)? of course not - don’t be silly!
You seem to be overly fixated on minutia here. The main point is that the horizon is an optical illusion, not the “edge of the world” which we could study/measure/look at to determine its shape.
The only thing I'm doing that is silly is engaging with your replies.
A blind person's ability to measure is greatly inhibited by their lack of lack of vision. The physical distances and shapes of things that they can accurately measure are very few and require direct physical contact, and/or memory from when they had vision, and /or information and tools given to them or created by people who have functioning vision. Arguing to the contrary is merely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, nothing more.
By the "logic" of your "main point", everything seen by the human eye is an endless optical illusion, including how the horizon appears flat from lower down. I'm not interested in delving into holographic universe or where ever this is going. Your stance against the obvious curve of the horizon in these videos is profoundly flawed and not based on logic or reason.
You only believe this because of your bias that what i am saying has to be bullshit. You cannot earnestly or objectively evaluate with such a bias, and in reality it is a conditioned response to protect your worldview.
It isn’t contrarian to point out that measuring and vision are separate and distinct. Measurement is done with many tools, none of which are the human eye (for good reason!).
No, you’re being silly again. I never said that everything was an optical illusion, i only said that the horizon was. Did you really misunderstand me, or do you just want to for rhetorical and rationalizational purpose? If you really think i said, or implied, that everything the human eye sees is an endless optical illusion, please quote what i said which made you think that so that we can discuss it.
I share your loathing for sophistry. There are few i dislike more than the simulationists/holosexuals. Perish the thought! I’m talking about demonstrably observable (i.e. measurable!), manifest objective reality and science.
The horizon is an optical illusion, not a place. We were mistaught about it. No bullshit, no holographic simulation, no “everything is just an optical illusion created by your mind” - hippy dippy nonsense.
And you will always presume/imagine it is so unless you take the time to understand the logic and reason! Asking questions would be a good first step! Assuming you already understand, and making erroneous statements based on your flawed assumptions is not a good way to learn about the perspectives of others.
How is a measurement tool used if not by looking at it? They are made to be read by the human eye. They don't work by themselves, they were not created by magic or AI, or maybe you think they are?
The horizon is a word that denotes where the the land meets the sky from our perspective, by sight. It is a natural boundary between 2 distinct media that can be seen with the eye. Sometimes it's hazy to see but we understand it to be there all the same. Think of it as similar to the separation between land and water you see in nature - the shore line, but also what you can't see: river, lake and sea beds are where the water stops and land begins. Or even with liquid in a container, the meniscus. Molecular boundaries.
The illusory part that is probably confusing you (unless your just being willfully ignorant) is that these boundaries are not a consistent shape, they move and change, with the horizon since the surface is irregular and can change over time, and the sky or atmosphere (or water, liquids in general) is malleable and transparent, for example. Water and gas and earth are different forms of matter, different molecule structures, though there are mixes like water vapor. They have different properties and behaviors. We give names to the "lines" where they meet in nature that we see most regularly: the horizon, the shoreline, the coastline etc. That is what these words, like horizon, denote: not an illusion. It's not a mystery or a lie. You've simply misunderstood what it means.
If your next reply requires more explanations of fairly basic, observable facts like this you're not getting it unless you start paying me for my time.