Ultra High Definition (4K) Crew Earth Observations

a reply to: tsurfer2000h


Thanks for those clips, TSurfer2000h. At that resolution, no terrorist is safe. We'll soon be able to zoom right down to the top of their heads and zap em with a pinpoint laser. No collateral damage at all!

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: nothingiscoincidence
You believe this crap? to me it says the more tax NASA takes in the more they can waste it on computer graphics

So how is it that spaceflight and having a space station in Earth's orbit is impossible? I'd love to hear your reasons.

Or is it just an inflamed conspiracy-ridden mind talking?

You should be questioning NASA and the rest of all the agencies why at least the public side of spaceflight has been TERMINATED for over 40 years.....

It would be nice if you answered my question rather than shifting goalposts, but oh well...

What "public side" did spaceflight have 40 years ago that it doesn't have now? We've had lots of commercial satellites and cargo spacecraft, members of public flying as astronauts, and public participation in robotic space missions.

Earth Orbit, is flat out boring, and these videos prove as much.

Your subjective opinion.

How is it that you can get so excited for stuff that should have taken place at least 40 years ago ??

I'm excited because it's taking place _now_ and drives our science and technology further and further.

Why do you so easily believe all the excuses as for why no one will even travel a human to the moon, AT LEAST IN THE PUBLIC EYE.

The reason for not going back to the Moon to date is simple - the cost. They would probably also think twice about putting humans on the spacecraft that was designed in the 60s and 70s. It's a no-brainer, really, but some people seem to lack even that.

a reply to: Bedlam

Aha, so you admit that you need more information to dismiss what I said, even though you did dismiss it.

But I bet he doesn't come back. Pity.

And why do you think that.

Because the tops of the taller buildings will be poking over the horizon.

So then you must agree that it is strange that we can see more than just the tops of a few buildings.....


There are lots of other examples.

a reply to: Bedlam

Your preconceived notion does not refute the specific claims I made.

And they refute your flat earth-no planets thing totally.

I never made any claim about "no planets" or "flat earth". I simply presented two situations and asked a question.

a reply to: SemperFried
Your video just proves what I posted here a bit earlier. In it, we see tall buildings poking out of the horizon like islands. Where's the rest of the city? If the Earth were flat, we 'd be able to see all of it, not even mentioning the far shore of the lake.



With regrads to seeing things in the distance, atmospheric conditions can play a role as well, making things normally invisible below the horizon poke above it.

But yeah, now that we know the location of the video and what it's looking at, we can now use maths to calculate how much the Earth's curvature would affect what we see. Any takers?

a reply to: wildespace

Ok.

So that's a 100 mile distance. I estimated the eye height is about 100ft in your pic.(it's probably less).

I used this calculator,

www.metabunk.org...

This is the result,

Horizon distance 12.25 Miles
Hidden Amount = 5134.52 Feet
'Bulge' Height = 1667.15

Hidden amount, 5135 ft.

So how are you seeing Africa again?

a reply to: wildespace

Your video just proves what I posted here a bit earlier. In it, we see tall buildings poking out of the horizon like islands. Where's the rest of the city? If the Earth were flat, we 'd be able to see all of it, not even mentioning the far shore of the lake.

You first have to explain why we see as much as we do, since this should be impossible.

To answer your question, we are looking at objects over 30 miles away. All it takes to obscure the bottom part is some low waves somewhere in between, due to perspective.


Anyways here's the calculation for that one at 30 miles and 6ft eye height.

Horizon distance 3 Miles
Hidden Amount = 486.13 Feet
'Bulge' Height = 150.04


486 ft.

originally posted by: SemperFried
a reply to: Bedlam

Aha, so you admit that you need more information to dismiss what I said, even though you did dismiss it.

No, I want you to specify where the goalposts are so you won't shove them. Using 30 miles from the shore to Toronto, you definitely can see the buildings. But if we just use THAT, you'll start shoving the posts. Won't you?

So then you must agree that it is strange that we can see more than just the tops of a few buildings.....

And THIS is why I required you to provide a photo and a location from which it was taken, so we could deal with "bu bu bu but you can see more than that" whilst you shove the posts about.

Come up with specifics. Not I think I thought I saw on the net. Specifics. A photo showing what you say, with a location it was taken at. Because you were stating 'you can see the skyline' and in fact you can...the skyline being the taller buildings. Anything over about 400 feet tall is going to be there. Which, given we're talking about Toronto, is a lot more than "a few buildings" and is about 65-70 of them. Or, put another way, pretty much any big building downtown.

originally posted by: SemperFried
a reply to: Bedlam

Your preconceived notion does not refute the specific claims I made.

Which of your claims remain unstomped? And it's not a preconceived notion, btw.

a reply to: Bedlam

Anything over about 400 feet tall is going to be there.

You can clearly see the buildings that are below 400ft tall, plus you can see much more than you should of the buildings that are higher. So please explain that.

Which of your claims remain unstomped?

Both.

originally posted by: SemperFried
486 ft.

Now, add to the building height the height above the lake in downtown Toronto. Or about 150 feet.

originally posted by: SemperFried

You can clearly see the buildings that are below 400ft tall

Do they come with keel heights painted on in your world? How do you look at them and "clearly see" what height they are?

...plus you can see much more than you should of the buildings that are higher. So please explain that.

Toronto is not at lake level. And again...how do you know you are seeing much more than you should? By what criteria are you making that assessment?

a reply to: Bedlam

Are you blind, you can clearly see the buildings that are lower than that, plus you can see way more more of the larger buildings than you should.

originally posted by: SemperFried
a reply to: Bedlam

Are you blind, you an clearly see the buildings that are lower than that, plus you can see way more more of the larger buildings than you should.

You can't possibly look at the buildings and know what height they are with your eye, or at what height on the building the horizon is hitting them.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: SemperFried
486 ft.

Now, add to the building height the height above the lake in downtown Toronto. Or about 150 feet.

And add the possible atmospheric distortion, which can "lift" things higher with respect to the horizon than they really are.

a reply to: Bedlam

Toronto is not at lake level. And again...how do you know you are seeing much more than you should? By what criteria are you making that assessment?

Toronto is in fact virtually at lake level, the same level as the camera height. By what criteria, uhm , the distance, the camera height, the known building height and the calculations used.

You really haven't got anything on this.

a reply to: wildespace

This still doesn't make up for the difference. Do some research.

a reply to: Bedlam

You can't possibly look at the buildings and know what height they are with your eye,

What? If I know how tall a building is by looking it up I can also determine pretty accurately how much we are seeing of it.

It is pretty straightforward, only a few buildings are higher than the supposed drop off at that distance, yet we can see virtually every building of the skyline.

If you're super familiar with the Toronto skyline from that angle, identify the shorter buildings that are almost below the horizon - I've got a list of the 60 tallest ones in town with altitudes.

The spiky tallest one about a third of the way from the left is the CN Tower, and is 1815 feet tall from ground level, which is really close to the lake. Maybe 20 feet of rise.

originally posted by: SemperFried
Toronto is in fact virtually at lake level...

Not in midtown, I'm using Google Earth to give me elevations. CN Tower is really close to lake level. That is 1815 feet to the top of the mast, give or take 20 feet.