Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Dilligaf, have you read a single one of my posts on this subject, looked at a single one of my diagrams. The diameters of images are NOT the diameters of the earth's globe. They are the limited by the horizon - the horizon will only be the size of the earth if you are an infinite distance away from the Earth. The two images have been sized to give them the same diameter, but the physical size of this diameter is different in the two images because they were taken at different heights above the surface of the Earth. The horizon is the place where your view hits the earth at a tangent to its surface. That tangent will then carry on into space with its blackness the background. Until you can understand why the diameters of the pictures aren't the diameter of the Earth, but only a small proportion of it, limited by the height above the Earth the image is taken then I'm not sure how to help. Please do look at the diagrams I've posted and see if you understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Thanks for putting this NASA controversy to bed for most of us here.Gerry, are you being sarcastic here? I hope you understand now how these images are in fact evidence that the Earth is spherical. The horizon stops you seeing the entire Earth and the horizon is always in reality, ie when a finite distance from the Earth, less than the diameter of the Earth. Unless you are many thousands of miles away from the Earth, the diameter of the horizon is only a very small fraction of the Earth's - does that make sense? I don't like this one, for example, as it makes the shadows of the mountains far larger than reality to bring out the relief:Yeah and the closer you get to the mountains, they appear to get smaller, its a wonderful and magical 2D world of Geometry that you live in Chinahand. Gerry, you see NASA as always being manipulative and hiding things etc. I see them as being reasonably open in what they are doing - when the image was made they were totally open that the relief had been enhanced by a factor of 50. Link Do you really think the 2D geometry can't simply be rotated to give a 3D geometry? Oh dear, Gerry, please try and think about this. Fancy answering a question - how far above the Earth would a camera with a depth of field of 60 degrees have to be to capture a photo of the whole of the horizon - what diameter would the disc be? Dilligaf, can you try sketching on a piece of paper how you might answer that question, it might help you understand what I'm going on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 I don't like this one, for example, as it makes the shadows of the mountains far larger than reality to bring out the relief: Yeah and the closer you get to the mountains, they appear to get smaller, its a wonderful and magical 2D world of Geometry that you live in Chinahand. Thanks for putting this NASA controversy to bed for most of us here. i actually can't believe what i'm reading! never heard anything so daft in my life. so how is the picture round then?!!! x PGW, I don't get what you are asking here. Why is the picture round? - because it is an image of the horizon on a spherical Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 that makes no sense china. how can we verify such a viewpoint. if i was in space and i see the blue marble, am i supposed to believe that the whole sphere of my view is a perfect ratio, spherically, of the horizon. all dependant on my distance? really tenuous concept if you ask me x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 that makes no sense china. how can we verify such a viewpoint. if i was in space and i see the blue marble, am i supposed to believe that the whole sphere of my view is a perfect ratio, spherically, of the horizon. all dependant on my distance? really tenuous concept if you ask me x We could shoot you into space. Might put a different perspective on matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 the whole sphere of my view is a perfect ratio, spherically, of the horizon. all dependant on my distance purple monkey diswasher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 PGW ... next time you go out on the Ben and are out in the middle of the Irish Sea, slowly turn round looking at the horizon all around you. You are looking around a circle. Or do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 that makes no sense china. how can we verify such a viewpoint. if i was in space and i see the blue marble, am i supposed to believe that the whole sphere of my view is a perfect ratio, spherically, of the horizon. all dependant on my distance? really tenuous concept if you ask me x Paul - when you've looked at a ball have you ever seen anything other than a circle when looking at it. Does it make no sense to you that this is the case, too? What is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Chinahand: I see what you are saying, I did from your first diagram, you are saying the red line for example is the diameter of the earth shown on the picture as below....i.e. this is blown up to appear as the full globe, but in fact the claim is that the red circle for example is all we are seeing and confusing it for a full globe..I understand you will see a more of the diameter as you move further away, however I think your diagrams over exaggerate this.. I don't agree, because the for a camera to be 824 KM above the earth and taking into account the earths diameter is nearly 13,000 KM it would be something like this below in scale.. Some of my problems with this are: 1. Just look at the angle of view and would we get a nice atmospheric ring around the planet as show? 2. would it not have some distortion in the image? 3. Its a composite image and the satellite orbits the earth, why the need for such a narrow shot ? 4. go to Google Earth and raise the camera to 824 km and imagine getting this from that height, i.e. a nice round picture with space showing and a nice even atmosphere? This is why I and many others believe that all of these blue marble images are nothing more than the creation of a special effect's department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Some of my problems with this are: 1. Just look at the angle of view and would we get a nice atmospheric ring around the planet as show? Why wouldn't you get the ring of the atmosphere - I've not tried to measure it, but as the disc is a diameter approx 5600 kms across it doesn't seem so out of size. What is your problem with it? 2. would it not have some distortion in the image? It is a composite - multiple images have been used which are from the centre of a small field of view camera these are understorted - these have then been stitched together to create the much bigger undistorted image of a much larger field of view picture. 3. Its a composite image and the satellite orbits the earth, why the need for such a narrow shot ? Because that is the view of the Earth the satellite is capturing - I've already linked to a photo where they've transformed the imagery to create a composite from a higher altitude, this one is as though they had a camera with a 127 degree field of view. The camera on the satellite doesn't have that field of view, but they've created an image as though it did. It is the view an astronaut would see if they were on the satellite looking around. 4. go to Google Earth and raise the camera to 824 km and imagine getting this from that height, i.e. a nice round picture with space showing and a nice even atmosphere? The google earth view has a lots narrower field of view, but if you tilt the view and look to the horizon you'll see that the view is consistent with the NASA composite. This is why I and many others believe that all of these blue marble images are nothing more than the creation of a special effect's department. NASA is totally upfront these images are composites using genuine imagery to build up a new image. You are convinced the whole thing is faked and I doubt anything will persuade you otherwise, though I'll have a go now and then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 Just to say Wikipedia tells us that the combined field of view of the human eye is 130-135 degrees. So if a person was on that satellite they would be able to just look out and basically see that image filling their view. Wow, what a sight that would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 PGW, do Gerry's sketches help you get what I'm going on about? The above image is a cross section - if you rotate it out of the page the place where the straight lines touch the sphere would create a circle like the red circle below. A person at the point where the two lines meet wouldn't be able to see anything beyond the red circle and would just look at into space everywhere else. Does that help explain why its a circle - another way to think about it is using a pair of compasses. You can't get any other shape, the circle is naturally created - try looking really close at a football - you won't see a whole hemisphere, only a part of it, but it will still look round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 1, 2016 Author Share Posted January 1, 2016 A nice set of photos showing how different camera lenses have different fields of view: A 15mm lens has a maximum field of view of about 110 degrees - so it is perfectly possible to have an undistorted view of the earth from 824 km like the NASA image. NASA didn't have a camera with such a large field of view, but have stitched together a series of smaller FOV images to create it. Gerry, do you really think this adds to your evidence of a conspiracy? Clutching at straws if you ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 PGW, do Gerry's sketches help you get what I'm going on about? Is this gerry's sketch of a Chinaman ..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 i get what you are saying china. so is the iss showing the whole mass of the earth? it's only at 400 km isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.