FE Question: Curvature Videos

[lasthero]

Ah, the glorious geostationary satellite, orbiting at an altitude of some 36,000 km and moving at over 11,000 kmh (or Mach 9 in the lingo, about 4x rifle bullet speed). But wait! That's assuming a stationary rotating earth. Betcha can't calculate the speed it's tumbling around an earth itself orbiting the sun at 110,000 kmh. Wwwway faster! Plus it would need to change speed significantly to 'catch up' with the earth on each revolution.

And you’re point is...

But how about them fixed and super long range camera shots, not even a flicker, a hint of motion relative to those clouds? And how does it deal with earth's unpredictable perturbations such as nutation, and with space weather like solar flares and other events that can throw it out of orbit or mess with its electronics?

Don’t know. Ask the people who built it.

It is up there, though. The video I brought clearly shows the satellite matching up with footage from the ground, in real time. I would love to hear your explanation for how that’s possible otherwise.

Unfortunately you got a case of indoctrination by magical thinking there my man. Take the cure - Jesus Christ, the truth - he'll save you.

I don’t recall Jesus talking about satellites, but I’d love to see that verse.

 

[Skreeper]

So, then... Which is it? Photo number one is real... or number two?

View attachment 263688

I do not have enough experience with photo or video editing to answer that question. These pictures also have a very tiny resolution which makes it much harder to detect anywthing weird.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

And you’re point is...

It's a physical impossibility. This thing?! Him a worry alright. How does it go from Mach 9 to Mach (let's say) 18 and back on every revolution? How could it stay in orbit with the massive changes in centrifugal force? Can you even start to conceive of how that is? Thing's a fake space Volvo. Haha look at it.

I would love to hear your explanation for how that’s possible otherwise.

Could be a high altitude balloon or blimp of some kind, or it could be just CGI. I'm not particularly convinced by the cloud comparisons.

Check out this video and consider all the motions that need to occur - it's a fixed camera.

. Note no celestial bodies or other satellites passing by either.

I don’t recall Jesus talking about satellites, but I’d love to see that verse.

Jesus speaks truth. Hence no mention of Arthur C Clarke's sci-fi inventions.

 

[lasthero]

It's a physical impossibility. This thing?! Him a worry alright. How does it go from Mach 9 to Mach (let's say) 18 and back on every revolution? How could it stay in orbit with the massive changes in centrifugal force? Can you even start to conceive of how that is? Thing's a fake space Volvo. Haha look at it.

That’s just a lame argument from incredulity. There are probably a lot of things you don’t understand the working of. Your inability to conceive of how something works does nothing to dispute whether something can work.

Could be a high altitude balloon or blimp of some kind, or it could be just CGI. I'm not particularly convinced by the cloud comparisons.

Balloons don’t go that high. Try again.

How do you explain the clouds matching up if it’s CGI?

Check out this video and consider all the motions that need to occur - it's a fixed camera.

. Note no celestial bodies or other satellites passing by either.

What celestial bodies would you expect to see? Do you understand how far away this and how tiny any satellite is in comparison?

Jesus speaks truth. Hence no mention of Arthur C Clarke's sci-fi inventions.

Jesus didn’t say anything about car maintenance, deep sea diving, or the best way to cook spaghetti. So what?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That’s just a lame argument from incredulity. There are probably a lot of things you don’t understand the working of. Your inability to conceive of how something works does nothing to dispute whether something can work.

I'm asking how (a) the massive changes in velocity are achieved and (b) how the massive changes in centrifugal forces are overcome - by a boxmonster to deliver us a fixed camera shot. You do know the difference between a fixed and moving camera? Arguments from incredulity are fine when there's good grounds for incredulity.

Balloons don’t go that high. Try again.

How high up do you think the camera is in the small box of the vid you posted (assuming it is)?

How do you explain the clouds matching up if it’s CGI?

Assuming they do match up more than general features, could be data feed from ground-based cameras + software to change the orientation, all done with minimal delay.

What celestial bodies would you expect to see? Do you understand how far away this and how tiny any satellite is in comparison?

Stars, maybe another of the 25,000 satellite objects supposedly spinning around. Maybe even the moon passing behind the earth if they wanted to show us! Geostationary is the farthest satellite orbital distance, 36K kms out they say.

Jesus didn’t say anything about car maintenance, deep sea diving, or the best way to cook spaghetti. So what?

He sure did, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[lasthero]

I'm asking how (a) the massive changes in velocity are achieved and (b) how the massive changes in centrifugal forces are overcome - by a boxmonster to deliver us a fixed camera shot. You do know the difference between a fixed and moving camera? Arguments from incredulity are fine when there's good grounds for incredulity.

That you don’t think it could work is inconsequential. If it bothers you that much, ask the people who built it.

How high up do you think the camera is in the small box of the vid you posted (assuming it is)?

Watch the video. He tells you.

Assuming they do match up more than general features, could be data feed from ground-based cameras + software to change the orientation, all done with minimal delay.

There’s no delay. It matches up in real time. Also, it would take a ridiculous amount of cameras to achieve that, would be insanely expense, and it wouldn’t work over water. You can’t have ground based cameras with no ground. Try again.

Stars, maybe another of the 25,000 satellite objects supposedly spinning around.

There aren’t nearly that many satellites, and most satellites aren’t even bigger than a car. I don’t think you really understand how far away this is. If you did, you’d know why expecting to see satellites is silly.

Maybe even the moon passing behind the earth if they wanted to show us!

You can see the moon in some shots, actually.

Geostationary is the farthest satellite orbital distance, 36K kms out they say.

And?[/QUOTE]

 

[Halbhh]

Their track record speaks for itself. You cannot make that may blunders and fake photo shopped photos, present them as if they are real... then continually use a fish eye lens camera... and all of a sudden, some new guy goes up there and films pristine videos... Who is the blind one here?

This video would have been very easy to fake... dupe, crop, mask, whatever else they use in the digital photo industry now... to present something that everyone is supposed to take as real.

Today, it is very difficult to prove or disprove an image. You cannot use it as proof if it can be faked. Some things are much harder to fake than others... a curve on a surface is not hard to fake. It's not hard to superimpose an image of the solar panels of the ISS onto the image to show no distortion of their edges... as was the case in the past where the solar panels were curved by the fish eye lens.

Again, your video is not proof.

In photos of the earth from the ISS, even the rate of curve varies greatly.. I don't think that they change their altitude this much:

The images are either distorted, from largely different altitudes, varied fish eye lenses, CGI or plane doctored images.. the only way you are going to get this much difference in the curve from the same relative height.

Different magnifications/width of field of view would perfectly fit those different images. I used to use various magnification eyepieces looking at the moon through my telescope when younger.

My name is Hal.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That you don’t think it could work is inconsequential. If it bothers you that much, ask the people who built it.

So that's your final answer? 'Behold the satellite truth'.

Watch the video. He tells you.

He does?

There’s no delay. It matches up in real time. Also, it would take a ridiculous amount of cameras to achieve that, would be insanely expense, and it wouldn’t work over water. You can’t have ground based cameras with no ground. Try again.

As I said, balloons, software. Fixed camera under the conditions described is all the evidence you need. Much easier to fake it from earth than actually do the physically impossible and put one up there.

There aren’t nearly that many satellites, and most satellites aren’t even bigger than a car. I don’t think you really understand how far away this is. If you did, you’d know why expecting to see satellites is silly.

You can see the moon in some shots, actually.

Can you? In that case, should see the stars etc as well.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Balloons don’t go that high. Try again.

How do you explain the clouds matching up if it’s CGI?

News just in from the angels:
They use weather simulated data over the oceans and doppler radar over the land run through supercomputers and superimposed over a 3D nasa blue marble base image.

 

[lasthero]

So that's your final answer? 'Behold the satellite truth'.

‘That sounds ridiculous to me!’ isn’t an argument.

He does?

He does. He tells you exactly where he is.

As I said, balloons, software. Fixed camera under the conditions described is all the evidence you need. Much easier to fake it from earth than actually do the physically impossible and put one up there.

You’re just saying such a thing could exist. You can’t just make up a system that you have no evidence for and use that as an explanation. Balloons do not go that high and ground cameras couldn’t cover that wide of an area and configure that much data that quickly.

Can you? In that case, should see the stars etc as well.

No, you shouldn’t. Do you understand how exposure works?

 

[lasthero]

News just in from the angels:
They use weather simulated data over the oceans and doppler radar over the land run through supercomputers and superimposed over a 3D nasa blue marble base image.

You really should watch the video I posted. He actually explains this. Sorry.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

‘That sounds ridiculous to me!’ isn’t an argument.





He does. He tells you exactly where he is.





You’re just saying such a thing could exist. You can’t just make up a system that you have no evidence for and use that as an explanation. Balloons do not go that high and ground cameras couldn’t cover that wide of an area and configure that much data that quickly.





No, you shouldn’t. Do you understand how exposure works?

See my last post #49. The Lord takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. In this case I pray He won't mind me making an exception.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You really should watch the video I posted. He actually explains this. Sorry.

He certainly does not. He only tries to rationalise the use of the blue marble underlay. The Himawari photos at 10 minute intervals are compiled back at SuperCray HQ using doppler radar data (over the land) and simulated images (over the sea). 'You should really watch' the vid linked, it's got all the source file data.

 

[lasthero]

He certainly does not. He only tries to rationalise the use of the blue marble underlay. The Himawari photos at 10 minute intervals are compiled back at SuperCray HQ using doppler radar data (over the land) and simulated images (over the sea). 'You should really watch' the vid linked, it's got all the source file data.

None of that would explain how the pictures pick up things likes bush fires, floods, the shadow of the Moon during an eclipse, et cetera.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

None of that would explain how the pictures pick up things likes bush fires, floods, the shadow of the Moon during an eclipse, et cetera.

Just more live data feeds, processing power. Satan just adds extra dancers to his conga line. Diabolically ingenious, but phony baloney all the same.

 

[SPF]

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Hilarious. The camera pans 360 degrees and the horizon is curving downwards the whole way?! Globers think the world was made by MC Escher.

 

[SPF]

Hilarious. The camera pans 360 degrees and the horizon is curving downwards the whole way?! Globers think the world was made by MC Escher.

Its amazing how even when you literally see the curvature in a video you can convince yourself it’s not actually there.

I really am looking forward to the excuses and rationalizations for how the commercial space flights are faked. I mean there has to come a point where such a large number of the public has actually gone to space and taken pictures and film that you just can’t keep denying it, right? Maybe?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Its amazing how even when you literally see the curvature in a video you can convince yourself it’s not actually there.

I really am looking forward to the excuses and rationalizations for how the commercial space flights are faked. I mean there has to come a point where such a large number of the public has actually gone to space and taken pictures and film that you just can’t keep denying it, right? Maybe?

No you can't have a circle which curves downwards at all points as you pan 360 degrees. It is a geometric impossibility. Simple as that. So it only appears to curve because you can only see so far in any direction. Think it through.

 

[SPF]

No you can't have a circle which curves downwards at all points as you pan 360 degrees. It is a geometric impossibility. Simple as that. So it only appears to curve because you can only see so far in any direction. Think it through.

Just like an ant looking down at a basketball it's hovering a few inches over, so the video is. What level of education do you actually have?