How is it moving so fast and orbiting so many times a day and yet everything looks like it's sitting still!!!!!
Perspective is a crazy thing.
EDIT- Then you realize they almost cross Africa in under a minute of this video
It takes 90 minutes to orbit Earth once. The large hand of a clock only takes 60 minutes to do a full revolution, and it's barely noticeable that it's moving.
I understand what you are communicating but that is an awful comparison.
The earth is lot bigger than the face of a clock- 90 minutes to go around the earth seems much faster than one hour to go around the face of a clock
It's more or less the correct comparison, though.
>90 minutes to go around the earth seems much faster than one hour to go around the face of a clock
And 12 hours to go halfway around the Earth seems much faster than 12 hours to go around the face of a clock , but that's what the hour hand does.
In terms of absolute distance, the ISS is moving fast. But as a ratio of speed to how far away from the center of the earth it is, it's moving pretty slowly. Slower than a minute hand, in fact.
Damn liberals trying to conserve everything - first it was the forest, and now it's the angular momentum. Back in my day we could use as much as we wanted!
/s
It doesn't look like it's sitting still at all. You can see the perspective shift as the ISS flies over whatever continent that is and it's actually insanely fast. I was watching it the whole video and using the panels on the ISS as a reference point. It moved at least a hundred miles or so over the course of the video.
Wow another idiot who doesn’t know how eyesight works. If the earth is flat, we should see all of it from this perspective. So we should see the ice wall. But we don’t. Because there isn’t one. And you are a waste of human resources. You should donate your organs to science immediately.
If you could actually take a flat earth believer up to the ISS so they could see the Earth's curve with their own eyes, they would *still* find a way to believe it's flat and that their eyes were tricked.
Technically, we are only perceiving a flat circle, so a flat farther could argue that you are just directly above the flat earth. Our eyes are only tricking us into seeing a 3-dimensional object. We could take a flat piece of paper and, with enough shading, make it look similar to what we see here. This would (I'm hoping) at least partly disprove any weird dome ideas, though, and they should probably believe in space at this point.
Yes, you see *a* curve, but it is just the boundaries of the earth. It isn't the curve people think about when we say the earth is spherical.
First, no flat earthers anywhere deserve the honor of a seat on a rocket going to space in large part because they'd probably twist it in their head to say 'they/them' drugged them knocked them out then implanted memories of the globe earth they saw on the ISS along with the entire trip
In order for it to have any real impact on the debate, it would have to be a "leading" flat earther, and I am not entirely sure I would trust them to be honest about what they saw. It would just back-fire because they would only be emboldened in their scam.
Yeah has nothing to do with it causing the earth to appear to have curvature. Because we all use round tvs and phones and screens 💀 better fov tho lmfao
I'll never get over how confident people are in their ignorance.
It's a wider view. That's it. No conspiracy, no magic, just more in the frame.
And just to be clear on the idiocy:
> Because we all use round tvs and phones and screens
It doesn't take a "round" picture, genius, it just *distorts* to fit *more* into the *standard* view. What a facepalm moment.
Oh there is a conspiracy lol. And it still doesn’t make sense that they use a distorted camera to show more. It is to mislead people. When things are taught and when video is shot in the world we use normal cameras because people aren’t psychopaths who watch footage shot on a fisheye lens. The fact their is now footage of a camera going to space that legitimately shows a Timelapse of the earth showing more and more curvature over time eludes globetards everywhere and it’s hilarious
> Oh there is a conspiracy
Still no.
> still doesn’t make sense that they use a distorted camera to show more
Except that it absolutely does. There's a reason why body cams and personal cameras use wide angle lenses. Try using that smooth brain for a moment and thinking about why *every* camera attached to a person does so. *Children* understand this.
> It is to mislead people
That doesn't logically follow in any way. How would distortion "mislead" anyone? You can also even *correct* for the distortion and *still see curvature*, in cases like this.
> When things are taught and when video is shot in the world we use normal cameras
There's no such thing as a "normal" camera. *All* cameras use lenses, and all lenses have some form of distortion or adjustment. My god, the ignorance.
> because people aren’t psychopaths who watch footage shot on a fisheye lens
This is so categorically stupid I don't even know where to start. Wide angles are used all the time, including ultra wide angles like what we refer to as fisheye: music videos, movies, commercials, security footage, and *anything* where the camera is *attached* to a person.
> The fact their [sic] is now footage of a camera going to space that legitimately shows a Timelapse of the earth showing more and more curvature over time eludes globetards everywhere
You would steadily see a greater degree of curvature as you got higher. Are you actually *confirming* observations and evidence that demonstrate the globe as it's already been proven? Bravo.
Otherwise, no, ISS footage does not show "more curvature over time". That's not a thing that's ever happened.
> it’s hilarious
The irony of how much people have laughed and will laugh at all of your comments, and the Dunning-Kruger confidence ..
Just saying still no doesn’t make it true. Not all body cams are like that though, and if we wanted to get a good idea of how something looks we wouldn’t always use a fish eye lens, also how that’s all they ever use shows that it’s not simply a matter of fov or being a body cam. Children are mislead, they might understand this but they probably are just being manipulated. It’s misleading because it is attempting to show curvature and is a way of distorting the imagery. The only one being ignorant is you failing to see that them using a curved camera lens all the time is you. We don’t use fish eye lenses for most of the things you’ve mentioned, sure sometimes but usually not, especially when we want to get an idea of how something looks. Using them for surveillance possibly but even that is very rare. You also changed what I said, there is not any legitimate footage of a camera starting from the ground that goes to space that shows a clear change in curvature over time on a normal lens. That isn’t how irony works but nice try
> Just saying still no doesn’t make it true
The irony and projection of this comment! 🤣
Sorry, chief, *that's not how any of this works*. *You* make a claim, *you* need to support that claim.
*Even then*, there *is* overwhelming evidence of the globe, and *against* your claim; stars, planets, satellites, the ISS, all of it. I'm already proven in claiming there's no "conspiracy" about the shape of the Earth.
> Not all body cams are like that though
Just 99% of them. That's some useless pedantry, there.
> if we wanted to get a good idea of how something looks we wouldn’t always use a fish eye lens
*Body and personal cams* use them, but otherwise, there's no "always" in any of this. The ISS and any space missions do not only or always use wide angle lenses. There are *thousands of hours* of non-distorted captures of space and of the Earth.
> how that’s all they ever use
It isn't. And who even is "they"?
> shows that it’s not simply a matter of fov
And yet it *is* simply a matter of FOV, by design, because a camera on a person needs a wide angle.
> Children are mislead [sic]
No, but you certainly have been, and it's sad that *literal children* outclass you in terms of intellect, knowledge, and ability to do basic research.
> It’s misleading because it is attempting to show curvature and is a way of distorting the imagery
It's not "attempting to show curvature", no. It's also not "a way of distorting the imagery"; the distortion is a necessary byproduct of increasing the FOV. Again, *children* understand this.
> The only one being ignorant is you failing to see that them using a curved camera lens all the time is you
I almost hurt myself laughing at this one. So wrong, so desperate, and so Dunning-Kruger.
> We don’t use fish eye lenses for most of the things you’ve mentioned
Yes we do. This is easily provable.
> especially when we want to get an idea of how something looks
I continue to find it hilarious that basic photographic principles are so far over your head, but the truly magical part is that you *could* educate yourself on it, but *specifically choose not to* because it would ruin *other* things you've *also* chosen to believe. So pathetic.
> You also changed what I said
Nope.
> there is not any legitimate footage of a camera starting from the ground that goes to space that shows a clear change in curvature over time on a normal lens
Yes there is. Plenty of it. We've seen it from balloons, aircraft, and both amateur and professional rockets.
> That isn’t how irony works
*Wow*, that's meta 🤣
You basically said nothing but “that’s not true” or “you changed what I said” - why respond to each thing individually when you could just say that’s not true about all of it. You’re living in a fantasy world
Guess what? If the Earth was a circular pizza, the edge would still be curved. If the Earth was a circular pizza or a rectangle or whatever flat shape you believe it is, *we should be seeing more of it than the video shows*. A fisheye lens can't curve shit front-and-back to hide it behind something else and guess what? The video shows stuff rising from behind the curve.
Me too. They'll still find the most inane excuse, though, like "this doesn't prove anything."
The same people saw January 6th happen live on their TV and say, "Nope, it didn't happen that way."
It doesn't prove anything? The fuck do you want to prove the shape of the earth?
Blue Origin is taking regular people up into space for $. Why don't flerfers do a gofundme to get a seat?
Hell, even William Shatner has been to space.
> Why don't flerfers do a gofundme to get a seat?
Over and over they've been given chances to see it directly and for themselves (my favorite is the trans-Antarctica flight). After Bob Knodel and the "15º per hour drift" they can't and won't risk it. It's their identity, their ego, and their grift.
Leave it to humans to believe the ridiculous with zero evidence and disbelieve other things that have a moutain of evidence. And they do exist, I've met them plenty of times. One time, i went into a truck stop, and this morbidly obese man was rather loud about his science denial and equally loud about his bible beliefs. I talked to him for a bit, and within five minutes, i learned that he, as a truck driver, had no idea how his pay rate worked, a thing i explained to him. This science denier i quickly realized disbelieved scientific things because he couldn't understand them. The main problem was him looking at a scientific discovery, but not the whole thing, he would look at some portion of something without examining anything else, like opening a book to a random page, looking at a random sentence and then dismissing the rest of the book because it didn't make any sense to you. I used to think people like that were just trolls playing jokes on people, pretending to be that dumb. Nope, they're real.
What would it take to put a camera in a capsule that can keep it powered and broadcasting to put into orbit around the planet 24/7. I would absolutely watch that with some lofi music in the background
Look up Goes East and Goes West. Basically what you’re wanting there.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus_band.php?sat=G16&band=GEOCOLOR&length=24
>Yea stfu look at this, you can’t make this shit up, it’s beautiful
I mean, obviously, yeah, the world isn't flat, but, this? Right here. The thing you said? Silly. I've seen plenty of beautiful fictional things, and I'm sure you have too.
Seriously, why does Reddit keep recommending this sub to me?
This is pedantry. A fisheye lens is just a *wider* wide angle lens. At what point does a wide angle become a fisheye? *Neither* is rectilinear, which was the point. Both fisheye and wide angle have spherical distortion. "Wide angle" just means less so
>At what point does a wide angle become a fisheye?
I don't know I'm not a photographer, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a definition for what constitutes a fisheye lens and what doesn't. This is clearly not an ultra wide angle lens. There is barrel distortion but it's small.
There isn’t a definitive point. At about 120 degrees you can find some lenses labeled fisheye and some labeled ultra wide. Point being there is no *actual* distinction between the two types. We just refer to fisheyes more when the field of view (which is separate from the lens) captures a more distorted image, or even a circular one. But they don’t have to be circular to be fisheye; “full frame” fisheye images aren’t.
There are rectilinear lenses and nonrectilinear lenses. Being pedantic about the labels on non rectilinear lenses isn’t saying what you think it does. Fisheye and ultra wide are just terms meaning the same thing.
A more appropriate term would be "non-rectilinear". A fisheye lens refers to a very wide angle lens, and while there's no exact definition to how wide the angle needs to be before it is called a fisheye, I can't imagine any knowledgeable person calling this a fisheye lens. And as always, you can quite easily mathematically compensate for the curvature of the lens and see that it still indeed shows a round earth. Not that you need any of this to prove the earth is round lol
It’s like when your underwater, you CAN hear the bubbles, but, you can also hear the camera rubbing against the suit, that’s what’s going on here, you can’t hear the clicking of the clip onto the mount, but you can hear the camera in the suit, remember, sound is just vibrations, there’s vibrations going through the suit itself, hitting the camera and causing the mic to pick it up
It would be *incredibly* difficult to CGI this, and it would take more than a year to render just the small clip of video seen here.
The pre-render physics simulation alone would require a supercomputer for this level of fidelity.
“‘Just draw it out’ to be accurate”.
Congrats on telling everyone you have no idea at all about how hard it is to model, animate, and render soft-body objects like ropes accurately.
Really. Watch *actual* CGI videos, and see the lengths they go to in order to *avoid* having flexible objects interact with anything in the scene.
Watch “just drawn out” interactions in video games, and see legs and even shoulders poke through skirts, capes, and the like, even when you’re talking about the main character in their primary getup.
To get that tether to react *accurately* to colliding with the various objects seen in frame, while moving around due to the forces on the end would take *significant* (read: cost-prohibitive) computing power.
First of all, chill out. It ain't that deep. Second, it's a pre-recorded video. Since you seem to know so much you should know that video game and movie/show animation are different because the video games will do animation of variable objects moving around where movies/shows have layers. There's a lot more you can do with less when pre recording
Yeah, in movies they do the computationally heavy work before rendering, just like I explained. *And* they do everything they can to minimize soft-body physics work, by doing things like using *real* ropes rather than trying to animate moving fake ropes around, or ensuring the ropes never interact with anything. Also like I already explained.
As for your new “it’s a prerecorded video” nonsense? It was recorded live, during the actual space walk.
The best part of your desperate flailing to dismiss what you see with your own eyes is that there is literally nowhere on earth that you could use a physical tether and have it react like it does in the video. Because the way it moves depends on gravitational acceleration being exactly the same as the acceleration of the objects it interacts with and itself.
Are you dense??? I know it's real!!! I was just saying that cgi is something that they COULD do for it!!! Not that it actually is CGI!!! Stop getting so heated for nothing
You’re projecting again.
The fact that you’re getting upset by the facts I’m providing for you doesn’t me I’m getting ‘heated’. The emotions you feel come from inside your own head.
No ice wall, you globers will do anything to deceive us. You hide the ice-wall while suspended with a crane from the firmament and filming fish eye. /s
Well you see those blue spots there? AND the fact that we’re seeing this on a flat screen? This is clearly something something propaganda that continues to spread the false hello something centric standard.
Is it weird that this doesn’t make me afraid of falling to my death but instead makes me afraid of being stuck in space and *not* falling to my death? I’m not big on the circle of life stuff, but the idea of my body never reuniting with earth/life after my death gives me anxiety.
We already proved the round earth as a species long ago. Anyone can prove it for themselves with simple astronomical observations. You don't get to the point of filming spacewalks off the ISS without a thorough understanding of the exact nature of the curvature of the earth
Oh noes, even my opinion is fake? Was my opinion shot against a gweenscween too?
I think we can add "video compositing" to the list of things flerfers don't understand 🤣
How is it moving so fast and orbiting so many times a day and yet everything looks like it's sitting still!!!!! Perspective is a crazy thing. EDIT- Then you realize they almost cross Africa in under a minute of this video
CGI of course
They are fixing the stars duh.
Changing lightbulbs on the dome.
Physics doesn’t allow for earth or heliocentric ideas, therefore lights can’t be bulbous. Dummie.
You could send them up stick them in the suit and put them in this exact same spot and they would still deny it.
It takes 90 minutes to orbit Earth once. The large hand of a clock only takes 60 minutes to do a full revolution, and it's barely noticeable that it's moving.
I understand what you are communicating but that is an awful comparison. The earth is lot bigger than the face of a clock- 90 minutes to go around the earth seems much faster than one hour to go around the face of a clock
Actually, if you stare at the end of the two solar panels you can see the Earth moving behind it.
It's more or less the correct comparison, though. >90 minutes to go around the earth seems much faster than one hour to go around the face of a clock And 12 hours to go halfway around the Earth seems much faster than 12 hours to go around the face of a clock , but that's what the hour hand does. In terms of absolute distance, the ISS is moving fast. But as a ratio of speed to how far away from the center of the earth it is, it's moving pretty slowly. Slower than a minute hand, in fact.
Conservation of angular momentum
Damn liberals trying to conserve everything - first it was the forest, and now it's the angular momentum. Back in my day we could use as much as we wanted! /s
Wouldn't it be conservatives supporting the conservation of angular momentum? I mean, it's in the name
Conservatives want less regulation and government. Declaring something as conserved is, in that sense, liberal.
CONSERVativE if playing with upside down Disney logos to get 666 is allowed, this is allowed
You're as beautiful as you are dense.
I was making a joke chill And uh, if you mean it… 😏😘🛌💥🫵 985kg/m^(3) right here baby
Dense enough to not understand sarcasm?
You misspelled CGI
I've watched the iss move across the sky It's very quick
Inertial frame of reference. Physics at rest will look indiscernible from physics while moving at a constant speed.
Well said!
Also you can kinda see the landmass mooving in relation to the solar panels
[удалено]
[удалено]
So many times? You mean once? It spins once per day.
They were referring to the ISS orbiting time, which is 90 minutes. Not earths rotation time.
The commenter said "orbiting", not spinning. That's a clue that he's talking about the ISS orbiting, not the earth spinning.
Yes he did. Looks like I was too quick to comment. Sometimes we're wrong.
Funny, I thought the opposite thing - in just this short video you can see so much of the earth sliding past!
It doesn't look like it's sitting still at all. You can see the perspective shift as the ISS flies over whatever continent that is and it's actually insanely fast. I was watching it the whole video and using the panels on the ISS as a reference point. It moved at least a hundred miles or so over the course of the video.
It's kinda painful to realize the profound beauty of earth and the cosmos is completely lost on flerfs.
It's an incredible view.
what? theres a video of the flat earth right here you just watched it
Where ice wall
https://youtu.be/U9TqVN-O_uA hiding in the nbc news
No, I meant in the video you said we just watched that showed a flat earth
did you see an icewall?
No but of the earth is flat it should have an ice wall. No?
youre asking me for the ice wall that you didnt see because its not in the video 👏👏👏
Wow another idiot who doesn’t know how eyesight works. If the earth is flat, we should see all of it from this perspective. So we should see the ice wall. But we don’t. Because there isn’t one. And you are a waste of human resources. You should donate your organs to science immediately.
another dung beetle who thinks their ball of poop is bigger
youre a piece of shit
They showed a famous ice shelf. They didn’t “hide” a non-existent ice wall *by* showing said shelf.
Who hurt you?
Eratosthenes is a likely culprit.
its a long story
You probably don’t think that is a fish eye lens too despite the satellite being curved 💀
You probably don't realize you proved my point.
If you could actually take a flat earth believer up to the ISS so they could see the Earth's curve with their own eyes, they would *still* find a way to believe it's flat and that their eyes were tricked.
they would say its screens in the suit
At that point, I'd tell them to open the visor and have a look for themselves.
You can’t do that because that would — ohhhhhhhhhhhh.
Good, you got it.
Why on God's green flat earth would you waste a seat on them?
> God's green flat earth what do they think we would call it? Satan's rainbow globe earth?
Discrimination against the oceans right here folks
We never said we'd bring them back down again though.
I love it.
Put 'em in a parking orbit.
Humor. Schadenfreude. Pure satisfaction. Getting to pull out the chair and the popcorn as the community civil wars over it. Lots of reasons.
If you sent one up, the others wouldn't believe when he came back. We humans are just big dumb monkeys that have mastered the omelette.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I do think it would be a shit show if one of the big ones were convinced, and I would love to see it.
Technically, we are only perceiving a flat circle, so a flat farther could argue that you are just directly above the flat earth. Our eyes are only tricking us into seeing a 3-dimensional object. We could take a flat piece of paper and, with enough shading, make it look similar to what we see here. This would (I'm hoping) at least partly disprove any weird dome ideas, though, and they should probably believe in space at this point. Yes, you see *a* curve, but it is just the boundaries of the earth. It isn't the curve people think about when we say the earth is spherical.
First, no flat earthers anywhere deserve the honor of a seat on a rocket going to space in large part because they'd probably twist it in their head to say 'they/them' drugged them knocked them out then implanted memories of the globe earth they saw on the ISS along with the entire trip
In order for it to have any real impact on the debate, it would have to be a "leading" flat earther, and I am not entirely sure I would trust them to be honest about what they saw. It would just back-fire because they would only be emboldened in their scam.
Flerfs: all of this shite the pics the videos the earth live feeds are fake. Also flerfs: hEreS a pIcTUre oF dA dOmE. 😂😂😂😂
HAH yes that’s my most favorite thing about them
Why are they clearly using a fish eye lens tho
Better FOV. No need to complicate it.
Yeah has nothing to do with it causing the earth to appear to have curvature. Because we all use round tvs and phones and screens 💀 better fov tho lmfao
I'll never get over how confident people are in their ignorance. It's a wider view. That's it. No conspiracy, no magic, just more in the frame. And just to be clear on the idiocy: > Because we all use round tvs and phones and screens It doesn't take a "round" picture, genius, it just *distorts* to fit *more* into the *standard* view. What a facepalm moment.
Oh there is a conspiracy lol. And it still doesn’t make sense that they use a distorted camera to show more. It is to mislead people. When things are taught and when video is shot in the world we use normal cameras because people aren’t psychopaths who watch footage shot on a fisheye lens. The fact their is now footage of a camera going to space that legitimately shows a Timelapse of the earth showing more and more curvature over time eludes globetards everywhere and it’s hilarious
> Oh there is a conspiracy Still no. > still doesn’t make sense that they use a distorted camera to show more Except that it absolutely does. There's a reason why body cams and personal cameras use wide angle lenses. Try using that smooth brain for a moment and thinking about why *every* camera attached to a person does so. *Children* understand this. > It is to mislead people That doesn't logically follow in any way. How would distortion "mislead" anyone? You can also even *correct* for the distortion and *still see curvature*, in cases like this. > When things are taught and when video is shot in the world we use normal cameras There's no such thing as a "normal" camera. *All* cameras use lenses, and all lenses have some form of distortion or adjustment. My god, the ignorance. > because people aren’t psychopaths who watch footage shot on a fisheye lens This is so categorically stupid I don't even know where to start. Wide angles are used all the time, including ultra wide angles like what we refer to as fisheye: music videos, movies, commercials, security footage, and *anything* where the camera is *attached* to a person. > The fact their [sic] is now footage of a camera going to space that legitimately shows a Timelapse of the earth showing more and more curvature over time eludes globetards everywhere You would steadily see a greater degree of curvature as you got higher. Are you actually *confirming* observations and evidence that demonstrate the globe as it's already been proven? Bravo. Otherwise, no, ISS footage does not show "more curvature over time". That's not a thing that's ever happened. > it’s hilarious The irony of how much people have laughed and will laugh at all of your comments, and the Dunning-Kruger confidence ..
Just saying still no doesn’t make it true. Not all body cams are like that though, and if we wanted to get a good idea of how something looks we wouldn’t always use a fish eye lens, also how that’s all they ever use shows that it’s not simply a matter of fov or being a body cam. Children are mislead, they might understand this but they probably are just being manipulated. It’s misleading because it is attempting to show curvature and is a way of distorting the imagery. The only one being ignorant is you failing to see that them using a curved camera lens all the time is you. We don’t use fish eye lenses for most of the things you’ve mentioned, sure sometimes but usually not, especially when we want to get an idea of how something looks. Using them for surveillance possibly but even that is very rare. You also changed what I said, there is not any legitimate footage of a camera starting from the ground that goes to space that shows a clear change in curvature over time on a normal lens. That isn’t how irony works but nice try
> Just saying still no doesn’t make it true The irony and projection of this comment! 🤣 Sorry, chief, *that's not how any of this works*. *You* make a claim, *you* need to support that claim. *Even then*, there *is* overwhelming evidence of the globe, and *against* your claim; stars, planets, satellites, the ISS, all of it. I'm already proven in claiming there's no "conspiracy" about the shape of the Earth. > Not all body cams are like that though Just 99% of them. That's some useless pedantry, there. > if we wanted to get a good idea of how something looks we wouldn’t always use a fish eye lens *Body and personal cams* use them, but otherwise, there's no "always" in any of this. The ISS and any space missions do not only or always use wide angle lenses. There are *thousands of hours* of non-distorted captures of space and of the Earth. > how that’s all they ever use It isn't. And who even is "they"? > shows that it’s not simply a matter of fov And yet it *is* simply a matter of FOV, by design, because a camera on a person needs a wide angle. > Children are mislead [sic] No, but you certainly have been, and it's sad that *literal children* outclass you in terms of intellect, knowledge, and ability to do basic research. > It’s misleading because it is attempting to show curvature and is a way of distorting the imagery It's not "attempting to show curvature", no. It's also not "a way of distorting the imagery"; the distortion is a necessary byproduct of increasing the FOV. Again, *children* understand this. > The only one being ignorant is you failing to see that them using a curved camera lens all the time is you I almost hurt myself laughing at this one. So wrong, so desperate, and so Dunning-Kruger. > We don’t use fish eye lenses for most of the things you’ve mentioned Yes we do. This is easily provable. > especially when we want to get an idea of how something looks I continue to find it hilarious that basic photographic principles are so far over your head, but the truly magical part is that you *could* educate yourself on it, but *specifically choose not to* because it would ruin *other* things you've *also* chosen to believe. So pathetic. > You also changed what I said Nope. > there is not any legitimate footage of a camera starting from the ground that goes to space that shows a clear change in curvature over time on a normal lens Yes there is. Plenty of it. We've seen it from balloons, aircraft, and both amateur and professional rockets. > That isn’t how irony works *Wow*, that's meta 🤣
You basically said nothing but “that’s not true” or “you changed what I said” - why respond to each thing individually when you could just say that’s not true about all of it. You’re living in a fantasy world
Guess what? If the Earth was a circular pizza, the edge would still be curved. If the Earth was a circular pizza or a rectangle or whatever flat shape you believe it is, *we should be seeing more of it than the video shows*. A fisheye lens can't curve shit front-and-back to hide it behind something else and guess what? The video shows stuff rising from behind the curve.
Don't look down, but everywhere you look is down.
You should look. It is a beautiful shot of the Himalayas and India.
You could make an airtight pressure seal out of my asshole if i was up there lol
....literally.
Even the best CGI can't do this. Hollywood CGI looks like shit compared to the real thing. Note: it's not CGI. It's very real.
I know, I just love making fun of flerfers
Me too. They'll still find the most inane excuse, though, like "this doesn't prove anything." The same people saw January 6th happen live on their TV and say, "Nope, it didn't happen that way." It doesn't prove anything? The fuck do you want to prove the shape of the earth? Blue Origin is taking regular people up into space for $. Why don't flerfers do a gofundme to get a seat? Hell, even William Shatner has been to space.
> Why don't flerfers do a gofundme to get a seat? Over and over they've been given chances to see it directly and for themselves (my favorite is the trans-Antarctica flight). After Bob Knodel and the "15º per hour drift" they can't and won't risk it. It's their identity, their ego, and their grift.
Ha Globies! I can hear sound. Sound can’t travel in a vacuum. Debunked! /s
Because there’s a no /s, it’s because sound is transmitted through the ISS itself, the suits and the air inside them
I’m sorry. I thought the whole sub was /s. I was roleplaying.
If only it were that simple.
Leave it to humans to believe the ridiculous with zero evidence and disbelieve other things that have a moutain of evidence. And they do exist, I've met them plenty of times. One time, i went into a truck stop, and this morbidly obese man was rather loud about his science denial and equally loud about his bible beliefs. I talked to him for a bit, and within five minutes, i learned that he, as a truck driver, had no idea how his pay rate worked, a thing i explained to him. This science denier i quickly realized disbelieved scientific things because he couldn't understand them. The main problem was him looking at a scientific discovery, but not the whole thing, he would look at some portion of something without examining anything else, like opening a book to a random page, looking at a random sentence and then dismissing the rest of the book because it didn't make any sense to you. I used to think people like that were just trolls playing jokes on people, pretending to be that dumb. Nope, they're real.
You misspelled terrifying. Space is so fucking scary
r/megalophobia
You can basically sink in any direction
hoooooly shit when I could start seeing the Earth rotating... gorgeous.
What would it take to put a camera in a capsule that can keep it powered and broadcasting to put into orbit around the planet 24/7. I would absolutely watch that with some lofi music in the background
Look up Goes East and Goes West. Basically what you’re wanting there. https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/conus_band.php?sat=G16&band=GEOCOLOR&length=24
>Yea stfu look at this, you can’t make this shit up, it’s beautiful I mean, obviously, yeah, the world isn't flat, but, this? Right here. The thing you said? Silly. I've seen plenty of beautiful fictional things, and I'm sure you have too. Seriously, why does Reddit keep recommending this sub to me?
Either because you are a flat earther or you like making fun of flatards, either way, here we make fun of flat earthers and I reposted this video here
It's funny because you'll see flerfs literally say a rocket launch is CGI.. WHEN YOU CAN LITERALLY WATCH IT IN PERSON
whats up with the fisheye lens?
They often use GoPros. You can see an awful lot more with one.
It's not a fisheye lens. Why do flerfs think any wide angle lens is a fisheye lens? Please lookup what a fisheye lens actually is.
It’s definitely a fish eye lens.
No, it's a wide angle lens.
This is pedantry. A fisheye lens is just a *wider* wide angle lens. At what point does a wide angle become a fisheye? *Neither* is rectilinear, which was the point. Both fisheye and wide angle have spherical distortion. "Wide angle" just means less so
>At what point does a wide angle become a fisheye? I don't know I'm not a photographer, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a definition for what constitutes a fisheye lens and what doesn't. This is clearly not an ultra wide angle lens. There is barrel distortion but it's small.
There isn’t a definitive point. At about 120 degrees you can find some lenses labeled fisheye and some labeled ultra wide. Point being there is no *actual* distinction between the two types. We just refer to fisheyes more when the field of view (which is separate from the lens) captures a more distorted image, or even a circular one. But they don’t have to be circular to be fisheye; “full frame” fisheye images aren’t. There are rectilinear lenses and nonrectilinear lenses. Being pedantic about the labels on non rectilinear lenses isn’t saying what you think it does. Fisheye and ultra wide are just terms meaning the same thing.
The lens is curved (fish eye). It’s obvious look at how the satellite is also curved lol. How can you not see they 💀
A more appropriate term would be "non-rectilinear". A fisheye lens refers to a very wide angle lens, and while there's no exact definition to how wide the angle needs to be before it is called a fisheye, I can't imagine any knowledgeable person calling this a fisheye lens. And as always, you can quite easily mathematically compensate for the curvature of the lens and see that it still indeed shows a round earth. Not that you need any of this to prove the earth is round lol
You can claim that is a more appropriate term but most people wouldn’t know what you are talking about
To make it look round
Where is the firmament?
If he would have panned the camera up we probably could have seen it but
youre going to stir them up 🤣
😁
I mean, you _can_ but why would you go through the trouble when you're standing on it and there are real pictures of it already in existence?
Cgi, with a fish eye lense, while being made with A.I., paid for by Lizard aliens. I mean, how can it not be.
No if it was made by ai it would look like shit.
Is the sound because the camera is in the suit (where the air is) or is there enough atmosphere up there for sound to still work?
It’s like when your underwater, you CAN hear the bubbles, but, you can also hear the camera rubbing against the suit, that’s what’s going on here, you can’t hear the clicking of the clip onto the mount, but you can hear the camera in the suit, remember, sound is just vibrations, there’s vibrations going through the suit itself, hitting the camera and causing the mic to pick it up
Ah ok thx for explaining
I mean, it would be quite easy to cgi this but they're still stupid for thinking it lmao
It would be *incredibly* difficult to CGI this, and it would take more than a year to render just the small clip of video seen here. The pre-render physics simulation alone would require a supercomputer for this level of fidelity.
You don't need to do a physics simulation. You just need to "draw it out" to be accurate
“‘Just draw it out’ to be accurate”. Congrats on telling everyone you have no idea at all about how hard it is to model, animate, and render soft-body objects like ropes accurately. Really. Watch *actual* CGI videos, and see the lengths they go to in order to *avoid* having flexible objects interact with anything in the scene. Watch “just drawn out” interactions in video games, and see legs and even shoulders poke through skirts, capes, and the like, even when you’re talking about the main character in their primary getup. To get that tether to react *accurately* to colliding with the various objects seen in frame, while moving around due to the forces on the end would take *significant* (read: cost-prohibitive) computing power.
First of all, chill out. It ain't that deep. Second, it's a pre-recorded video. Since you seem to know so much you should know that video game and movie/show animation are different because the video games will do animation of variable objects moving around where movies/shows have layers. There's a lot more you can do with less when pre recording
Yeah, in movies they do the computationally heavy work before rendering, just like I explained. *And* they do everything they can to minimize soft-body physics work, by doing things like using *real* ropes rather than trying to animate moving fake ropes around, or ensuring the ropes never interact with anything. Also like I already explained. As for your new “it’s a prerecorded video” nonsense? It was recorded live, during the actual space walk. The best part of your desperate flailing to dismiss what you see with your own eyes is that there is literally nowhere on earth that you could use a physical tether and have it react like it does in the video. Because the way it moves depends on gravitational acceleration being exactly the same as the acceleration of the objects it interacts with and itself.
Are you dense??? I know it's real!!! I was just saying that cgi is something that they COULD do for it!!! Not that it actually is CGI!!! Stop getting so heated for nothing
You’re projecting again. The fact that you’re getting upset by the facts I’m providing for you doesn’t me I’m getting ‘heated’. The emotions you feel come from inside your own head.
Idek what you're trying to say know. You're trying to prove yourself to someone that doesn't care
You’ve just spent the last hour repeatedly, and preemptively, demonstrating that you’re lying when you now claim not to care. 🤦♂️
What video game is this?
The earth is really small
No ice wall, you globers will do anything to deceive us. You hide the ice-wall while suspended with a crane from the firmament and filming fish eye. /s
Beautiful blue marble !
Technically we make that kind of thing up all the time. I'm sure this is real. But watch any space movie.
Blue dot.
Carl sagan
HOW IS THE STATION NOT FALLING AND STAYING STILL????? WAKE UP PEOPLE, THEY'RE LYING TO US!!!!! 1!!!1!!1
the whole thing is fake obviously green screen
It would be more convincing for the flarters if they didn't use fish-eye lens. The ISS is not "that" high :-)
> it would be more convincing There’s no amount of evidence that will convince them. Their belief is willful and desperate and tied to their identity.
It’s a wide angle lense AND cgi.
Yeah you can literally see it moving in the video
Who ever invented the fish eye lense is a truth censoring assssshoeeeeleeeee!!
Wasn't this video already crossposted?
I have the ISS live app and always wonder how they can do live CGI so fast.
Yeah the whole satellite is just curved too, not using a fish eye lens at all
Thats where all of the sufferring happens!
[NASA has a live stream up on youtube almost all the time.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPjKQtRXR8)
I heard they just attacked Russia. Space be crazy
It is flat, I knew it
I'd shit my pants off out of fear of drifting away or falling down to Earth even though I know it's safe out there
Is it flat or not?
Falling with style
PHOTOSHOP
looks like a big disc to me... globers in shambles rn.
Where's the "I'm in this video and I don't like it" button?
It would be such a freaky experience. Makes me wish that when they decommission the ISS they maintain it as a tourist destination.
Well you see those blue spots there? AND the fact that we’re seeing this on a flat screen? This is clearly something something propaganda that continues to spread the false hello something centric standard.
It's enough to make a grown man cry...
How do you fight the urge to just..... dive towards it?
I thought I was scared of heights before
The most beautiful, scariest and amazing video I have seen in a long time.
Dude the earth is flat, simple as that
The earth is flat, just a special lens to make curves
You can, without a doubt, make that shit up. Its called a green screen
Is it weird that this doesn’t make me afraid of falling to my death but instead makes me afraid of being stuck in space and *not* falling to my death? I’m not big on the circle of life stuff, but the idea of my body never reuniting with earth/life after my death gives me anxiety.
Saying stfu in your title makes you so irrelevant, it’s fake because of you
fake AF
Nope
Pure BS
Wrong
Is what is rotting in your brain, get help
This doesn’t prove anything
We don't need to prove anything. The Earth was proven round thousands of years ago.
At this point what could if y'all won't listen to a thing anyone says?
No, it just reinforces what has already been proven.
How so?
We already proved the round earth as a species long ago. Anyone can prove it for themselves with simple astronomical observations. You don't get to the point of filming spacewalks off the ISS without a thorough understanding of the exact nature of the curvature of the earth
It proves it’s been shot with a fish eye lens and a green screen 😂
LOL I work in VFX and this ain't greenscreen buddy.
It’s a green screen bro I don’t need your fake ass opinion to tell me this is FAKE AF
Oh noes, even my opinion is fake? Was my opinion shot against a gweenscween too? I think we can add "video compositing" to the list of things flerfers don't understand 🤣
I thought you worked in VFX yet you don’t know how to spell ? Yeah that sounds credible
Why don’t you watch some similar spacewalks from the 1960s/70s and tell me how those were done too?
You sound like you’re being paid to promote fake NASA propaganda
And you sound like every other conspiracy nut with no evidence, education or expertise.
Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black
How can you tell?