Відео

Globe

@@alexf962 there is no curve, so...

@@traquemorrel1820 There Is and a single sunset proves the whole flatearth wrong, so...

@@traquemorrel1820 Get a ruler

Yep

Get a ruler

Get a ruler

Bait

Nope. From 1:16 all the way to 2:08 the curve is visible. It's more noticeable in the areas that aren't full of hazy clouds but it's there the whole way through, even as the balloon begins to freefall. Get ruler, that should help.

@@javierlatorre480 no it's not curved. You watch baseball? It looks just like the field, center field is further back then the corners. Earth is a ROUND DISK . It will always have a round shape going close to long distance not curved as in the middle( center field) being higher than the sides- no. Baseball fields are flat- same exact thing is the earth. Look again

@@javierlatorre480 even still lmao so the other minute it's flat? C'mon bro you should know just by that that it's angles and perspective that's all. But whatever makes you happy go convince yourself not my problem lol

@@miguelrosado7014 The other minutes the camera is not high up enough to capture the curvature. You're really grasping here. You can't just say "angles and perspective" as though the words BY THEMSELVES can constitute the whole argument. Baseball fields are not round, and if you're implying that the curve is there due to it being circular, it implies that you should be seeing all the way to the ice wall. Which you don't. That body of water is just the Gulf of Mexico.

@@javierlatorre480 you don't watch baseball I get it. Your mind can't compare anything, that's your problem not mine once again. You're convinced but not convincing lol. Try again. It's angles look that up and perspective look that up dude it's not just words they actually mean stuff

Get a ruler

Roundness is not the same as sphericity. What you see here is the roundness of our flat Earth. Wake up!!!!

@@jesus4400 Cope

Did you see the clock on the bottom right hand corner that says "5:51 am" at the very start of the video? That's why. If anything that's a flat Earth _loss_ as the Sun would be visible from the ground at that hour were Earth to be flat.

Bait

bad troll 6.5/10

Call me a troll if you like, but that doesn't give this place any curvature. There would be a fixed horizon if I climbed in elevation and that fixed horizon would drop below eye level as that altitude is gained if the ball model was correct. Instead, the horizon rises with the eye. You could put a ruler or yardstick on that flat, eye level horizon and the distance that can fit within it increases with altitude. You don't have to climb very high at all before the spherical trigonometry gets completely destroyed. A line was drawn a long time ago, and you chose poorly. You may "know not what you do", but that unfortunately makes you the enemy today. The enemy is huge. The enemy outnumbers me. But I have a secret. The awareness is like an opened box that can't be closed. I call it the Ark. You won't beat the Ark. Have a nice day.

@@michaelglendinning1738 How can you tell the horizon is "rising with the eye" in this video if the camera is swinging around wildly? Also, I have, personally, measured the dip in the horizon, and it exists. First I measured from the top of a hill; the dip was tiny but detectable with a bottle of water to use as a reference for level. Sometime later I repeated the observation from a plane and the dip was far more noticeable. So instead it's pretty clear that you're just wrong. If you genuinely believe this stuff then you're not a troll but you are definitely, factually, incorrect on this. Also I got a ruler and measured a curve in the horizon on this video as well, so.

@@javierlatorre480 watch Dwayne Kellum's amateur balloon footage. He doesn't use fish eye lenses. Some of his launches go to 220,000 ft. His balloon launches turned him into a Flat Earther. We don't pretend to know what this place is; we only can prove what it is not. I have done a lot of plane travel in my 48 years here. The horizon is always eye level, regardless of which window you choose to look out of. It is checkmate for the ballers, but that indoctrination everyone received as children is hard to throw away. I can lay out provable tests for hours straight and still not convince most. And cognitive dissonance is another animal all together. The ball slowly loses over time. The awareness moves slow; but hell should be slow.

It's a little more obvious around 1:34 where there are less clouds. Also it is indeed below the "viewing perspective". Only issue is the camera _isn't sitting still._

The actual uncrewed balloon altitude record is 188 000 ft, so no. Get a ruler. Earth is not flat lol

@@javierlatorre480 tell Google not me, and I think you the one that needs the ruler to try and locate that curve... it's definitely flat.

@@GREEKKINGG I'm telling you because clearly you didn't do even the bare minimum research and just latched onto the first number you found, even though (or probably BECAUSE) it contradicts what you just saw. And no, I recommended the ruler because I DID find curve with it. A constant curve at the highest elevation regardless of the camera angle.

​​​@@javierlatorre480​ might want to check your eyes if you see curvature. You're making yourself see something that's not there based of your bias beliefs of the Heliocentric theory that's been force feed to us growing up. It's gotta curve somewhere if it's a spinning ball and they claim ships go over the horizon at the beach yet even from 20 miles high there's still no curve, it's only prospective, if it was a ball, then the horizon at 1:50 would be "lower" and not even with the viewing prospective. Be honest with yourself , I know its hard to beleive you were deceived but wouldn't you rather know the truth? Google photos of earth from space and notice they are all cgi composites. The ball earth is a fantasy.

@@GREEKKINGG No, I see curvature because I went out of my way to measure it by literally sticking a ruler on the screen to compare with and not only was the horizon curved with respect to that ruler, but the curve was constant for that entire segment of the video. Notice that none of the ones taken during Apollo are composites, nor are the ones taken by all prior missions. Notice that Apollo predates the very existence of CGI. For someone who complains about being force-fed a narrative, you sure ate up a lot of really easily debunkable conspiracy drivel and are trying to regurgitate it verbatim.

As the balloon rises in the atmosphere, the atmosphere gradually becomes thinner, i.e. the air pressure drops. At ground level, the external pressure of the atmosphere equalises with the internal pressure of the balloon. But as the atmospheric pressure drops as the balloon rises, it provides less resistance against the internal pressure of the balloon, so the balloon gradually swells up more. Eventually the balloon just swells to the point that it pops. At 110 000 ft the atmospheric pressure is roughly 1% the pressure at sea level.

Gökkube..

Indeed. A pretty good look at the Earth's curvature without a pesky fisheye lens

Get a ruler

Bible never says that earth is flat. Don't bother put here any, none of them says earth is flat

No, the balloon just popped from the pressure differential. You'd think the "firmament" would be _visible_ if the balloon made contact with it.

Dovevano metterla dentro il pallone, eh?

@@primonomeultimonome No, metterla in modo che inquadrasse correttamente, ti sembra impossibile?

@@giacomogiglio8963 Ha ripreso esattamente quello che doveva riprendere.

@@primonomeultimonome assolutamente no, l'orizzonte si intravede ma non si vede mai chiaramente

@@giacomogiglio8963 Ma se non si vede null'altro che l'orizzonte per tutta l'ascesa del pallone!

Bro…what… Hold up I need some clarification. So you mean to tell me…you think the horizon…CANNOT be equidistant…on a flat plane…🤔 Wait wait so can you explain to me what it is about a flat plane that would prevent the horizon from being equidistant to a camera 100,000ft in the air…help me please I’m lost lol

@@xFaytal What shape is this “flat plane”? Circle? Square? Rectangle? Oval? Something else?

⁠@@EmersumBigginsBible mentions “circle of the Earth” so I’d assume circle like a pancake. Answer my question now I need help please.

@@xFaytal If that’s the case, then the only location that the horizon could be equidistant from a camera would be the exact center. You need to have that explained to you?🤔

@@EmersumBigginswait wait…so you mean to tell me you think we’re supposed to see the edge of the earth at 100,000 feet? That’s the only way the camera in this video wouldn’t have equidistant view of the horizon right? I’m confused what point you’re trying to make lol.

Which software?

Get a ruler

​@elyjahstark7549 This reply was pointless lol

The only thing flat is the readout of your brain activity 🙄

​@elyjahstark7549Got a full playlist with low distortion lenses showing the curve. Goodbye imaginary pancake.

@elyjahstark7549 "Nuh-uh" is no evidence, buddy. The Earth is measurably curved. Cope.

The Earth very much looks curved. I suggest you get a ruler. Question, how do you think the Sun being 93 million miles away should look like?

Well i guess it is a world view I see no curve@@javierlatorre480

@@2267victor I still recommend you get a ruler for this video. There's curve 1:16

@elyjahstark7549 Nope, got the ruler. Still not flat. It's also not eye level. Get something to compare the horizon with and you will see when you look at it in person.

@elyjahstark7549 Usually it's because someone like you keeps messaging me

Get a ruler

@@javierlatorre480 little fish eye

@@MrItaliano1900 And yet the horizon remained convex in the parts where it was below centre frame.

@elyjahstark7549 Well, I've done the ruler trick again on your timestamp and it still isn't flat. There's a noticeable bulge above the ruler.

​@elyjahstark7549 Local man can only sit and deny the observation of curvature using a flat line for reference. Edit: His reply is further denial. I need not say more lol

what? 1:30

Get a ruler, it'll help

lens distrotion@@turtle6401

@@johannesveike7407 nope

​​@@johannesveike7407barrel distortion (what flat earthers want to call "fish eye") always causes straight lines not crossing the center of frame to curve away from the center, yet the horizon can clearly be seen curving toward the center when below the center of fame at 1:16, which means the horizon clesrly is curved.

@@a_forest_walker "so you sit in a room playing with a calculator to prove what is real even though you can see for yourself video after video, no matter the altitude of the rocket or balloon, that the horizon is always at eye level. Do you know what Tesla had to say about guys like you?" I was more talking about putting together the diagram and seeing how observer height affected horizon dip. Also, I have a direct view of the ocean where I live, and I could confirm the dip was about as slight as I had calculated, using the water in a bottle for reference. The surface is level enough that aligning it with my eyes was easy, and the horizon was below that. Additionally, can you REALLY say that the horizon is at "eye level" in these videos? The camera sure as hell isn't perfectly level in any of these, either swinging around like in this video, or pointed quite noticeably upwards or downwards. "And I have been on international flights so I can attest that the horizon rises to eye level at 38,000 feet. There is no way this happens on a globe." Lemme guess, you eyeballed it with nothing to use as a reference? I've been on international flights as well (including a few that would not exist were the Earth to be flat), and I had the sense to actually use a reference for eye level and guess what? The horizon dipped. I even photographed the horizon then squished the photograph horizontally to exaggerate the already existing curve. One more thing: this video DOES show curvature. Put a ruler up on the screen and you will see it. "Have you ever looked into Picard's first high altitude balloon ascent?" Yes. He too suggested bringing a ruler along to see the curvature. And besides, he was looking through a tiny fucking porthole, that's why he saw "upturned edges" "The reason this is news to you is that the whole education system (rocky feller funded) wants to dupe you and delude you. They aren't interested in creating actual thinkers. They want workers making them profits, so they dumb you down and program your beliefs. You have to challenge those beliefs and that programming or you will never get free. And worse, you will be arrogant about your ignorance." I have a bachelor's degree in Physics and Astronomy. I don't give a FUCK what some rando on UA-cam has to say about the education system of a country I don't even fucking live in.

@elyjahstark7549 Irrelevant point, simple minded troll. Stop projecting your obsession with 🌭 onto others, dick licker😂

​@@a_forest_walker Hilarious how you tell people tondo their homework when you know zero math. My video shows the Horizon drops at FL 350 so you are wrong. You don't even know what Eye level means. You people play the expert when you are so far behind...

@@alexf962 okay tondo, did it take you all nine months to come up with that nothing burger? I love that the thumb nail itself reveals your ridiculousness. As I read your inane words I am looking at the eye level horizon from this high altitude. It is staring you in the face while your noodle is tying itself in knots trying not to see.

@@a_forest_walker Hilarious how angry you Always get. You can't handle being proven wrong huh. It's Easy to call "Word salad" what you Just can't handle. If you did your homework you would not have fallen for probably the dumbest scam ever invented. But please keep believing you have the higher ground here, it's hilarious.

Are you telling me you would have wanted to watch the whole half hour climb from 25 to 60 000 ft? There's a clock in the bottom right corner.

errr wrong mate

Don't try to explain that to someone who failed geometry, they can't understand that.

it's literally the camera lens's distrortion in the corners. You can see that when it is angled down the curvature is inverted.

​@@johannesveike7407 I just double checked and nope, the horizon never actually goes concave in this video. If you insist it does, timestamp it please

​@elyjahstark7549 Well you did timestamp it elsewhere...but yeah no, no lens distortion

Too bad there's actually some visible curve all the way up there. Get a ruler. I wonder where NASA got those $100 billion dollars, since its budget is only like a fifth of that

LOL, do you have a book in your house? I know you doesn't have a ruler, that's for people who finished elementary, put under the curve and weep!

​@elyjahstark7549The irony.

@elyjahstark7549 Another delusional flerf making a fool of himself. Go get an education.

density isn't a force

@@delayedcreator4783 density is a force, Archimedes' law proves it, this works in both negative and positive (up and down)! Moving matter creates energy!

@@emilianoantonini9375 density = mass / volume. Where is the force in that🤣🤣🤣.You will get nobel price if you prove that🤣

@@emilianoantonini9375 Archimedes' principle only works on the principle that the medium being displayed is denser, therefore heavier, than the object displacing it, to generate positive buoyancy. In other words, it depends on the materials' weight. Meaning it depends on gravity. Also Archimedes quite famously stated: “The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose centre is the same as that of the Earth.”

@@javierlatorre480 No sorry! look... objects fall or rise vertically not due to a 'force of gravity', but due to the difference in density between the object itself and the surrounding medium. An object more dense than medium will tend to fall downwards, while one less dense will tend to rise upwards. For example, a stone falls through the air because it is denser than air. These motions also depend on the absolute density of the medium: with the same density difference between the object and the medium, the motion will be slower in a denser medium, due to the greater resistance encountered (e.g. a balloon in water rises more slowly than in 'air). Furthermore, Archimedes' law states that an immersed body receives an upward thrust equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. This helps explain buoyancy and suspension. In summary, in this alternative model, falls and vertical motions are explained by relative density, media drag and buoyancy, without invoking the existence of a 'gravitational force'."

There is. Grab a ruler

But evidence points the other way...

Your mind is flat.

At an altitude of 100,000 feet with a low field of view? Of course it does.

Get a ruler, that should help

Yawn. God isn't real and the Earth is a Globe. Get used to it finally!

@@CAMlCAZl No. If you don't see what I see it was censorship by the content maker. If we live on a giant spinning spherical water world space ball spinning faster than a BULLET at the EQUATOR where is one IOTA of PRESENCE, SUBSTANCE , FORM or PHYSICALITY of GRAVITY ITSELF???

@@ramonortiz7462 another red herring fallacy huh? Answer the arguments presented against your previous claim, and then we can take a long look at your other claims. You claimed the horizon was flat. I presented video evidence debunking that claim. You have now tried twice to disregard said debunking without giving a reasoning why. Provide the reasoning why my debunking isnt valid, or accept that the horizon is convex at 100 000+ feet altitude. After you have done that, then we can go through your gravity or neil tyson topics one at a time.

@@CAMlCAZl I may do so. Oops already have. Acclaimed PHYSICIST NDTYSON ADMITS that you cannot see the curvature of the earth at 60+ miles in altitude looking down or out ACROSS the earth!! Gotta shine some Tiffany silver.

@@CAMlCAZl You think sending up a fish eye lens on the calmest of days will reaffirm your dying model?? Nope!!