Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

roughly a half meter

Yes, so roughly ArcTan[0.5m / 5000000 m] = 0.00000573 degrees , or e.g. 0.005 micron at 50mm focal length, a fraction of a fraction of a pixel.

Cheers,
Bart

[Farmer]

Those are among my favourites too. Others include

"It's at times like this that I wish I'd listened to what my mother used to tell me when I was a child."
"What did she say?"
"I don't know. I didn't listen."

and the description of a Vogon spaceship as "not so much designed as congealed".

Jeremy

"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."

[jeremyrh]

It's slightly amusing to read the ramblings of a flat-earther on a photography website; much more troubling when similar ignorance ascends to a position of power

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/betsy-devos-picked-as-presidentelect-donald-trumps-education-secretary/

[Phil Indeblanc]

It's slightly amusing to read the ramblings of a flat-earther on a photography website; much more troubling when similar ignorance ascends to a position of power

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/betsy-devos-picked-as-presidentelect-donald-trumps-education-secretary/

I don't think anyone here, nor person of power (depending on your order of importance) has claimed to be a flat earth believer.
The "ignorance" falls on you as the observer, and the amusement for all else.
You measuring someones intellect from a webpost only digs yours lower...let alone inaccurately. It also exposes your arrogance and self righteousness.

[N80]

I don't think anyone here, nor person of power (depending on your order of importance) has claimed to be a flat earth believer.
The "ignorance" falls on you as the observer, and the amusement for all else.
You measuring someones intellect from a webpost only digs yours lower...let alone inaccurately. It also exposes your arrogance and self righteousness.

Agreed. As I mentioned way back in this post, I doubt the existence of any credible flat-earthers and suspect the notion of such is primarily there to make others feel better about themselves.

[jeremyrh]

Agreed. As I mentioned way back in this post, I doubt the existence of any credible flat-earthers

No kidding.

[N80]

No kidding.

And if they're not credible......then they're not worth mentioning.

[Phil Indeblanc]

And if they're not credible......then they're not worth mentioning.

Would you say for you, would evidence matter to make someone credible?
(feel free to have a list of evidence requirements that might make someone credible)

[Phil Indeblanc]

Since we have a few here....you might find this interesting...

https://youtu.be/xYClIRXKiT4

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Since we have a few here....you might find this interesting...

Not really interesting, just funny. The first glaring thing he deliberately misses, if the earth is flat, then why does it cast a cresent shaped shadow? And no, it's not due to the curvature of the moon surface, because the shadow cresent is similar on the top and the bottom of the moon surface.

The second thing is that his diagram of the sun/earth/moon, has totally wrong proportions, so the size of earth's shadow disc (not a plane) moving across the moon surface is actually much smaller than the diagram suggests.

The third thing is that the sun does not rise, but the earth itself rotates, and so does the moon around the earth.

the fourth thing is that only part of the eclipe is shown, so his timelapse location and the date of the eclipse  was carefully selected to serve his purpose, by not showing the full event.

I'm back to doing something useful. Bye.

Cheers,
Bart

[N80]

Would you say for you, would evidence matter to make someone credible?
(feel free to have a list of evidence requirements that might make someone credible)

If someone in 2016 thinks that you can sail off the end of the earth, they are not credible. Someone in 2016 who gives them credibility in order to argue that you cannot sail off the end of the earth is only slightly more credible.

But let's not get caught up in the word credible. The point is the same.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Not really interesting, just funny. The first glaring thing he deliberately misses, if the earth is flat, then why does it cast a cresent shaped shadow? And no, it's not due to the curvature of the moon surface, because the shadow cresent is similar on the top and the bottom of the moon surface.

The second thing is that his diagram of the sun/earth/moon, has totally wrong proportions, so the size of earth's shadow disc (not a plane) moving across the moon surface is actually much smaller than the diagram suggests.

The third thing is that the sun does not rise, but the earth itself rotates, and so does the moon around the earth.

the fourth thing is that only part of the eclipe is shown, so his timelapse location and the date of the eclipse  was carefully selected to serve his purpose, by not showing the full event.

I'm back to doing something useful. Bye.

Cheers,
Bart

Well thanks for the feedback. I have not read much about our solar system past HS or some college reference to it. From the day I started the thread, I have been very interested. I do think there is enough interest and presentations for me to have the desire to try at least one or 2 points of the first post I made. I simply was looking for advice on how to conduct it. Its amazing how no one responded with any constructive help. Just everything in the extreme likeness to drowning one out to see tied to rocks and checking if one floats as in Salem.

I did learn a lot from this thread. It surely brings out a lot of ones character.

George,
The folks that are in the mindset that the eartch is flat think that Antarctica surrounds the edges, and why that there is no specific south pole, and why it is illegal to travel there, besides a dedicated area, until 2045. There is some nice history to the area from WWII to now. Even before that with sailors and their records. Yes, credibility can also be "proven" by volume.

Here is another level test across water. This was done by a group that wants to prove that the earth is flat
https://youtu.be/GBhDFO4NMrw

[Farmer]

It's not illegal to travel to the south pole.  You can book a holiday there if you like:

https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/destinations/antarctica-holidays/south-pole

[Phil Indeblanc]

It's not illegal to travel to the south pole.  You can book a holiday there if you like:

https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/destinations/antarctica-holidays/south-pole

 Looks like you can only have escorted tour and cruise ship form $about $2000,
or a $10+ or $35K Guided tour.
I wonder if other parts in such weather conditions have such restrictions?

Anyways, The amount of info I have gone through in a week doesn't change that the earth is as I once "understood" it as spherical.
But to bridge the gap, it maybe that there is a test we can do to personally measure, or have some confirmation that is observable from a photographic perspective.....

The test is to show curvature as an object goes below the horizon line....

As the distance of an object increases away from the camera the object from bottom up will start dipping below the horizon line
VS
The idea that converging lines and the vanishing point are the explanation...by looking again with zoom the object reappears fully.

It would be interesting to know the object height, distance and see if the given values of the earth size applies and equates accurately in the math. Its a practical way about it, no? Anyone try it before?

[N80]

George,
The folks that are in the mindset that the eartch is flat think that Antarctica surrounds the edges, and why that there is no specific south pole, and why it is illegal to travel there, besides a dedicated area, until 2045. There is some nice history to the area from WWII to now. Even before that with sailors and their records. Yes, credibility can also be "proven" by volume.

At the risk of being Captain Obvious here....we have seen the earth from space. Both first hand and photographically. We have flown around it in its own atmosphere.

To ignore that simple data is de facto evidence of having no credibility. Which speaks to my point: there are no credible flat earthers any more than there are credible people who believe that the moon is made of cheese. Which makes me wonder why we are discussing them or even the concept of a flat earth? Maybe I need to re-read the whole thread. Not!. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The test is to show curvature as an object goes below the horizon line....

As the distance of an object increases away from the camera the object from bottom up will start dipping below the horizon line
VS
The idea that converging lines and the vanishing point are the explanation...by looking again with zoom the object reappears fully.

It would be interesting to know the object height, distance and see if the given values of the earth size applies and equates accurately in the math. Its a practical way about it, no? Anyone try it before?

Plenty of tests around, e.g. this. And even in the flawed test in the last video link you posted, at 20 minutes, the 'bottom' of the boat started disappearing as it got further away than 5 km, i.e. it was hidden by the lake's curvature.

Cheers,
Bart

[N80]

In the 1600's sailors knew that you could see a ship on the horizon sooner if you were up a mast. Thus the crow's nest. They also knew that you could see an approaching ship's mast come above the horizon before the hull. Thus the term "hull down". They used this principle to calculate the distance between them.

Are we re-inventing the wheel?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In the 1600's sailors knew that you could see a ship on the horizon sooner if you were up a mast. Thus the crow's nest. They also knew that you could see an approaching ship's mast come above the horizon before the hull. Thus the term "hull down". They used this principle to calculate the distance between them.

Are we re-inventing the wheel?

Yes, it seems some are, but then Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195/194 BC) has beaten all of them since he invented the discipline of geography, and was the first man known to calculate the circumference of the earth.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

So, how many angels are there on the head of pin?

[degrub]

So, how many angels are there on the head of pin?

Only one that matters....