It's unavoidable. It's also something that would be seen for a flat earth as well (the rim of the LP record effect)---or weren't you aware of that? Glad to see that you had no argument against all the other points I raised.
Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not the sharpest pair of scissors doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. What other force can you explain? They all boil down to questions we can't answer.
Just a bunch of ignorance about nearly everything.
To take the simplest example, why can't the Hubble Telescope take a picture of the Earth? Because it is optically impossible, that's why. The Wide Field Camera #3 has a visual field of 160x160 arcseconds. 160 arcseconds works out to be 768 microradians. This multiplied by the orbital altitude of 540 km works out to be a lateral distance of 0.4 km. In other words, the Hubble Telescope could take a picture of a few city blocks, but that would be all it could image. The Earth is over 12,000 km in diameter. Do you begin to see that it is simply optically impossible for the Hubble Telescope to take a picture of the whole Earth, when it can only take a picture of a few city blocks?
So, this bone-headed notion is tossed off like it is purest "common sense," but it is really doubly-purified "common ignorance." You guys have had plenty of time to check it out to see if it makes sense, but you can't be bothered to do any real checking of anything. If it feels good...it must be right. That is your method---and it is not science. People dislike my highly critical attitude of flat-earth stupidity, but this is an example of how well-earned that attitude is.
The other stuff is similarly ignorant. There is optical evidence of the curvature of the horizon (in the outbound direction). You just have to see it in the radio spectrum (and compensate for the atmospheric refraction). Radar is not hindered by clouds. The image of the bridge is not a hundred miles in extent. I know how far a hundred miles is, having driven it many times, and while the bridge as a whole may indeed be that long, the portion in the photo was definitely not. And optical distortions immediately disqualify any conclusions drawn from invalid imagery. (There were no optical distortions when Magellan circumnavigated the world, a fact that you folks like to pretend didn't exist. No optical distortions when people flew around the world. Or circumnavigated it by atomic submarine.)
Next time, express your own understanding in words. When you say nothing but put forward an IGNORANT video, you have to own the ignorance it contains. You didn't know any better, did you?
There are plenty. You just have the idea that CGI is are for nefarious purposes. It's the only way you can generate a picture of a whole object if the camera is only a relatively tiny distance from it. The Moon photos are perfectly realistic (plenty of distance)...and we will be able to do it again fairly soon (I hope).
It's unavoidable. It's also something that would be seen for a flat earth as well (the rim of the LP record effect)---or weren't you aware of that? Glad to see that you had no argument against all the other points I raised.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTdGEwB4C/?k=1
Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not the sharpest pair of scissors doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. What other force can you explain? They all boil down to questions we can't answer.
🙈🙉
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTdtjEwUE/?k=1
Just a bunch of ignorance about nearly everything.
To take the simplest example, why can't the Hubble Telescope take a picture of the Earth? Because it is optically impossible, that's why. The Wide Field Camera #3 has a visual field of 160x160 arcseconds. 160 arcseconds works out to be 768 microradians. This multiplied by the orbital altitude of 540 km works out to be a lateral distance of 0.4 km. In other words, the Hubble Telescope could take a picture of a few city blocks, but that would be all it could image. The Earth is over 12,000 km in diameter. Do you begin to see that it is simply optically impossible for the Hubble Telescope to take a picture of the whole Earth, when it can only take a picture of a few city blocks?
So, this bone-headed notion is tossed off like it is purest "common sense," but it is really doubly-purified "common ignorance." You guys have had plenty of time to check it out to see if it makes sense, but you can't be bothered to do any real checking of anything. If it feels good...it must be right. That is your method---and it is not science. People dislike my highly critical attitude of flat-earth stupidity, but this is an example of how well-earned that attitude is.
The other stuff is similarly ignorant. There is optical evidence of the curvature of the horizon (in the outbound direction). You just have to see it in the radio spectrum (and compensate for the atmospheric refraction). Radar is not hindered by clouds. The image of the bridge is not a hundred miles in extent. I know how far a hundred miles is, having driven it many times, and while the bridge as a whole may indeed be that long, the portion in the photo was definitely not. And optical distortions immediately disqualify any conclusions drawn from invalid imagery. (There were no optical distortions when Magellan circumnavigated the world, a fact that you folks like to pretend didn't exist. No optical distortions when people flew around the world. Or circumnavigated it by atomic submarine.)
Next time, express your own understanding in words. When you say nothing but put forward an IGNORANT video, you have to own the ignorance it contains. You didn't know any better, did you?
You raised no points glad you dont wonder why we cant see apic that hasn't been CGI by NASA
There are plenty. You just have the idea that CGI is are for nefarious purposes. It's the only way you can generate a picture of a whole object if the camera is only a relatively tiny distance from it. The Moon photos are perfectly realistic (plenty of distance)...and we will be able to do it again fairly soon (I hope).
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTdt6L9ee/?k=1
You can clearly see his hand pushed it "down." What else do you expect in a weightless environment? All your proofs are rooted in ignorance.