None of those rulers are near the center of the lenses yet they don't distort.
As i said, it is mostly due to the lens being calibrated for the focal length you are using, but it is also (at least in part) because the light which enters the center of the lens perpendicularly is the least distorted (that's regardless of focal length).
Seems like you guys just wanna make up any excuse you can to say you can't see the earth curve.
It's the opposite, though I am not one of "you guys". You want to be able to see the curve, and want to believe that the distortion you see in this picture (or from an airplane) is that curvature. This bias comes from what we call education. The truth is, that the curvature is not there/perceivable at any available (to you or i anyhow) altitude (this is also calculable).
We'll I got news for you.. You don't even need a camera. You can see it with your naked eye.
This is a common and popularized misconception. The horizon (unless distorted) is always flat, level, and horizontal. You can't see any curvature (even if it were there) with your naked eye from any available altitude, even with a two by four at your disposal. If you could, the world would have to be far too small. I encourage you to calculate it if you don't believe that.
And I'm sure there's barrel distortion going on there too....
There certainly is, however the shape of the retina and processing in the brain is supposed to correct for that. Still, malformation of the eye (and/or nerves/brain which processes the signals from it) is very real and certainly possible.
However in the example you mentioned, barrel distortion couldn't be the cause. Much more likely you would be observing a swell (water isn't motionless) or distortion from the air (and/or things dissolved/commingling in that air). Try that same observation on a large lake on a calm day!
Can't trust them lying eyes.
Exactly! That's what science is all about. We measure because simply looking isn't good enough and often leads to incorrect conclusions.
Granted. When speaking of the horizon, we are most often speaking of the visible horizon, which is very different than the actual/geographical horizon conceived in the globe model (aka the edge of the earth). What is most often missed is that this visible horizon is an optical illusion and not the physical edge of anything but our vision. That is one of the major reasons that it doesn't curve, and even if it did would not have bearing on the shape of the world.
As in no matter where you are?
Correct.
Wouldn't a flat earth have a round horizon in some places near the edge?
No, the visible horizon (which is the limit of your vision - a line surrounding you in 360 degrees) would be and is always flat.
Also, assuming the world flat - who says it would have an edge at all, let alone a curved one? The ones who believe in an edge are the globe proponents and believers - not the others.
you always see the same uniform appearance?
It's because the horizon is an optical illusion. It's the same reason the horizon appears to rise up to your eye level in the distance. It has to do with angular resolution limits of the eye, which is the cause of perspective. It also varies with weather conditions in distance / clarity etc.
Can you think of any 3D shape that will appear the same no matter what angle it's viewed from
That "argument" doesn't apply to observations made of the earth. That is a common argument for observations of the moon and such things, but it is a big mistake to think that the uniformity we observe on earth has any dependency on sphericity. It's the opposite. The world is flat either because it actually is, or merely because it appears that way to us because of our relative scale.
What's this then?
That is a picture with distortion in it. Most likely that is caused by distortion from the air/and things dissolved/commingling in it. This can be confirmed by seeing the same shot from a slightly higher vantage point which shows clearly there is no curving occurring. But as I said, science is about rigorous measurement not merely looking! Often what we see, especially at great distance, is not what is. We often forget that we are looking through an awful lot of stuff, and even the laws of perspective/optics as a result of the design/limitations of the eye are not particularly intuitive.
You ruled science out the moment you ignored all of it's findings to adopt a theory that necessitates gravity not existing.
I did no such thing! Science is about dissent, disagreement, and doubt my friend. "All of its findings" are not congruent and consensus is a curse word in science (also known by another term : bias). Truth is not a democracy, thank god.
It is precisely because of scientific findings, my adherence to the principles/philosophy of, as well as study and love of science that i have come to the conclusions i have.
Besides, you are misunderstanding my view. Gravity very much exists, and has formally for millennia. It is gravitation, invented a few centuries ago, which doesn't exist. I'm not subscribing/adopting any theory whatsoever - merely rejecting/discarding a theory (gravitation) misrepresented as a law which has never had any empirical support or reality. Newton didn't even bother to offer a hypothesis for it, because he understood it could never be empirical. He literally attributed its function/mechanism to the christian god.
If the earth is a disc then you should be able to go near the edge of the disk and go up high enough that you can see the edge, which would appear as a curve.
Only if the earth is a disc, has an edge, and you are close enough to that edge (and it is illuminated well enough) for you to view it. That's a lot of ifs!
Very few i have encountered that think the world is flat think it is a disc (and none of those think it is a disc "floating in space"). Many think it doesn't have an edge, and most that do think it has an edge also speculate that that edge is not reachable (for varying reasons).
The point is, if the earth were a giant flat disc (with edges that were too far from us to be seen, or without edges at all and a plane not a disc) or a sphere too large for us to discern its sphericity due to our relative scale - our experience/observations would remain the same in both cases.
It doesn't count
No, it doesn't apply. You seem to misunderstand that argument and its purpose. It isn't about our view of the world, which unquestionably presents itself experientially to us as (mostly) flat either because it is or because it is an illusion due to our relative scale. The pictures of the world that we take never show pieces of a (giant) basketball, and the horizon is always a flat line that surrounds us.
Every photograph that proves the earth is round is either fake cgi, or distortion that coincidentally conforms to scientific models of the earth
You misunderstand - i'm saying that it absolutely, unequivocally does not conform to scientific models of the earth. The curvature you show in both pictures would make the world far too small (that's one of MANY ways to determine that it is in fact due to distortion). If you don't believe me, do the calculations yourself!
Your map shows anartica or the "ice wall" as you put it to be like 500,000 miles long.... Like longer than every other continent's coastline put together.
Not my map! However AE maps are the preferred ones for military campaigns, by the by. Much like looking for the shape of the world in an optical illusion (the horizon), looking for it in a map is silly.
Wether antarctica is a giant ice wall surrounding the known world or a continent of the size and shape we are taught has no bearing on the shape of the world. The whole thing is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) red herring; a product of the flat earth psyop.
I mean everywhere you look there are loose threads all over this theory that unravel at the slightest pull.
There is no theory for the shape of the world, flat, spherical, or otherwise. Scientific theories are never for determining or describing the shapes of physical objects.
As for "loose threads", there is much to justifiably criticize about the views of those who think the world is flat, as well as those who think the world is spherical. But that will never establish the shape of the world - right? The globe model is inconsistent with many of our observations, as all models always are - but that doesn't prove it wrong (and the inverse, that just because some of our observations are consistent with it doesn't prove it right) right? The truth is that scientific models are always wrong. Models are built for specific limited purpose and they are made to be (limitedly) useful. Useful is not the same as correct!
As i said, it is mostly due to the lens being calibrated for the focal length you are using, but it is also (at least in part) because the light which enters the center of the lens perpendicularly is the least distorted (that's regardless of focal length).
It's the opposite, though I am not one of "you guys". You want to be able to see the curve, and want to believe that the distortion you see in this picture (or from an airplane) is that curvature. This bias comes from what we call education. The truth is, that the curvature is not there/perceivable at any available (to you or i anyhow) altitude (this is also calculable).
This is a common and popularized misconception. The horizon (unless distorted) is always flat, level, and horizontal. You can't see any curvature (even if it were there) with your naked eye from any available altitude, even with a two by four at your disposal. If you could, the world would have to be far too small. I encourage you to calculate it if you don't believe that.
There certainly is, however the shape of the retina and processing in the brain is supposed to correct for that. Still, malformation of the eye (and/or nerves/brain which processes the signals from it) is very real and certainly possible.
However in the example you mentioned, barrel distortion couldn't be the cause. Much more likely you would be observing a swell (water isn't motionless) or distortion from the air (and/or things dissolved/commingling in that air). Try that same observation on a large lake on a calm day!
Exactly! That's what science is all about. We measure because simply looking isn't good enough and often leads to incorrect conclusions.
Granted. When speaking of the horizon, we are most often speaking of the visible horizon, which is very different than the actual/geographical horizon conceived in the globe model (aka the edge of the earth). What is most often missed is that this visible horizon is an optical illusion and not the physical edge of anything but our vision. That is one of the major reasons that it doesn't curve, and even if it did would not have bearing on the shape of the world.
Correct.
No, the visible horizon (which is the limit of your vision - a line surrounding you in 360 degrees) would be and is always flat.
Also, assuming the world flat - who says it would have an edge at all, let alone a curved one? The ones who believe in an edge are the globe proponents and believers - not the others.
It's because the horizon is an optical illusion. It's the same reason the horizon appears to rise up to your eye level in the distance. It has to do with angular resolution limits of the eye, which is the cause of perspective. It also varies with weather conditions in distance / clarity etc.
That "argument" doesn't apply to observations made of the earth. That is a common argument for observations of the moon and such things, but it is a big mistake to think that the uniformity we observe on earth has any dependency on sphericity. It's the opposite. The world is flat either because it actually is, or merely because it appears that way to us because of our relative scale.
That is a picture with distortion in it. Most likely that is caused by distortion from the air/and things dissolved/commingling in it. This can be confirmed by seeing the same shot from a slightly higher vantage point which shows clearly there is no curving occurring. But as I said, science is about rigorous measurement not merely looking! Often what we see, especially at great distance, is not what is. We often forget that we are looking through an awful lot of stuff, and even the laws of perspective/optics as a result of the design/limitations of the eye are not particularly intuitive.
I did no such thing! Science is about dissent, disagreement, and doubt my friend. "All of its findings" are not congruent and consensus is a curse word in science (also known by another term : bias). Truth is not a democracy, thank god.
It is precisely because of scientific findings, my adherence to the principles/philosophy of, as well as study and love of science that i have come to the conclusions i have.
Besides, you are misunderstanding my view. Gravity very much exists, and has formally for millennia. It is gravitation, invented a few centuries ago, which doesn't exist. I'm not subscribing/adopting any theory whatsoever - merely rejecting/discarding a theory (gravitation) misrepresented as a law which has never had any empirical support or reality. Newton didn't even bother to offer a hypothesis for it, because he understood it could never be empirical. He literally attributed its function/mechanism to the christian god.
Only if the earth is a disc, has an edge, and you are close enough to that edge (and it is illuminated well enough) for you to view it. That's a lot of ifs!
Very few i have encountered that think the world is flat think it is a disc (and none of those think it is a disc "floating in space"). Many think it doesn't have an edge, and most that do think it has an edge also speculate that that edge is not reachable (for varying reasons).
The point is, if the earth were a giant flat disc (with edges that were too far from us to be seen, or without edges at all and a plane not a disc) or a sphere too large for us to discern its sphericity due to our relative scale - our experience/observations would remain the same in both cases.
No, it doesn't apply. You seem to misunderstand that argument and its purpose. It isn't about our view of the world, which unquestionably presents itself experientially to us as (mostly) flat either because it is or because it is an illusion due to our relative scale. The pictures of the world that we take never show pieces of a (giant) basketball, and the horizon is always a flat line that surrounds us.
You misunderstand - i'm saying that it absolutely, unequivocally does not conform to scientific models of the earth. The curvature you show in both pictures would make the world far too small (that's one of MANY ways to determine that it is in fact due to distortion). If you don't believe me, do the calculations yourself!
Not my map! However AE maps are the preferred ones for military campaigns, by the by. Much like looking for the shape of the world in an optical illusion (the horizon), looking for it in a map is silly.
Wether antarctica is a giant ice wall surrounding the known world or a continent of the size and shape we are taught has no bearing on the shape of the world. The whole thing is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) red herring; a product of the flat earth psyop.
There is no theory for the shape of the world, flat, spherical, or otherwise. Scientific theories are never for determining or describing the shapes of physical objects.
As for "loose threads", there is much to justifiably criticize about the views of those who think the world is flat, as well as those who think the world is spherical. But that will never establish the shape of the world - right? The globe model is inconsistent with many of our observations, as all models always are - but that doesn't prove it wrong (and the inverse, that just because some of our observations are consistent with it doesn't prove it right) right? The truth is that scientific models are always wrong. Models are built for specific limited purpose and they are made to be (limitedly) useful. Useful is not the same as correct!