I know this sounds like babby's first science question or some flat earther shit, but I honestly want to know the answer to this since I noticed that every game that tries to do a curvature planet always ends up allowing the player to see said curvature from the ground surface. So...
Is the reason why we cannot see the Earth's curvature from ground level due to the immense size of the planet?
Is this why in games such as the Minecraft clone "Minetest" you could pretty much see such a curvature due to the world in the software being immensely small?
>Is the reason why we cannot see the Earth's curvature from ground level due to the immense size of the planet? Have you ever been somewhere really flat, like the sea, and things eventually just disappear into the horizon? That's the curvature of the Earth. It's the same reason why you can see further by being higher; more of the Earth's curvature falls in your field of view.
Adrian Gomez
I mean, how come you don't literally see the horizon curve? But I never been to some place really flat so I don't think I could say I witnessed that.
I would really like to make Minecraft look like Earth, but we don't see the world like this exactly so I am wondering if this is due to the size of the sphere and if I wanted to simulate Earth curvature if the sphere has to be larger.
Very interesting video. You're right. We're not tall enough. From the ISS though, at about 250 miles up, the curvature shows clearly. That's still not high enough to see more than a limited part of a hemisphere.
I checked that the image in a NASA photo and not CGI.
This video says that if you took an average Minecraft survival world and tried to make it spherical it would be at least the size of an A5 white dwarf. What would the curvature look like if the players were standing on its surface?
Yeah, a lot of games will give you a planet that's much smaller than a real planet would be, for gameplay reasons. Something like Planetary Annihilation has pretty small planets that you can easily see the curvature of, even from ground level.
Try Space Engine if you want some software that generates actual planet-sized planets, and then you can see the effect yourself. Pick one, fly toward it and descend to the surface, you will see how the horizon becomes flatter and flatter as you lose altitude. Eventually, the curvature is totally unnoticeable due to the size of the planet and your proximity to it.
>I would really like to make Minecraft look like Earth, but we don't see the world like this exactly so I am wondering if this is due to the size of the sphere and if I wanted to simulate Earth curvature if the sphere has to be larger.
If you want Minecraft to look like Earth it needs to be the size of Earth. That would require a radius of 6,371 kilometers, or 6,371,000 blocks.
Anthony Gonzalez
According to this , Minecraft would be the size of a white dwarf so wouldn't we have to shrink a Minecraft world down?
Jackson Rivera
Yes, a Minecraft world would need to be smaller to have the size of the Earth. With Earth-sized curvature, a flat sea that went to the horizon would require a draw distance of 294 chunks.
Benjamin Walker
Never having played Minecraft I cannot answer your question. However, wouldn't the required radius depend on the height of the player? Or the character or avatar or whatever they're called.
Sebastian Murphy
I decided to check out this Minetest thing and the higher you go the less gravity you encounter so my next question is: How come we still experience gravity pulling us down if we were to get to airline levels?
Is this also relevant to the size of the Earth?
Is there a mathematical formula that I could use to determine size of planets for world building purposes?
Grayson Bennett
How did he make the torus look like a sphere?
Nathan Mitchell
I made some screenshots to illustrate. This planet is about 1.2 times the diameter of Earth, so it's a close enough comparison.
Here we are on a beach at sea level, horizon looking pretty flat.
And even further up, it's very obvious. The altitude here is about 360km. The real ISS orbit floats around this altitude, which is why it's easy for them to see the curve of the Earth and record images/video of it. (In fact the Earth's curve would be even more noticeable at this altitude than this, because it's smaller than our virtual planet here)
Gravity varies as the inverse square of the distance to the center of the planet. The Earth is about 4000 miles in radius. An airliner at 30,000 feet is therefore about 6 miles further from the center. (4000/4006)^ 2 = 0.997 You've lost 3/10ths of one percent of your weight. If you weigh 150 lbs, the loss is about 7 ounces. Even at orbital heights, the loss is trivial. Astronauts are weightless because they AND their vehicle are falling together. Because of their horizontal speed, the Earth curves away just as fast as they descend. They never hit but fall permanently 'around' the Earth.
Camden Gomez
What do you need to know? Gravity? Escape velocity? Distance to the horizon?
Lucas Baker
>Is there a mathematical formula that I could use to determine size of planets for world building purposes?
Could you elaborate on this? You want to determine the size of a fictional planet, but based on what information?
If you want it to be Earth-like, then you can just google Earth's measurements.
>look up on the world wide web what time itll pas over >go outside at that time >look up with binoculars You might be retarded
Brandon Ramirez
All I really want someday is a Minecraft game with realistic biomes, realistic world, resources that deplete, and a spherical world. Would creating an Earth sized world in a video game be possible?
Easton Lopez
So you're looking for something that isn't fun?
Juan Perez
If you want to know what Earth (or any other known world) LOOKS like from any altitude, download Celestia. It's free.
Get a hold of a globe. They're easy to come by. I have one that's .305m in diameter (about a foot).
The Earth is 12,756,000m in diameter. So my globe is scaled at about 1:41,822,951.
That means if I'm at the top of the 828 meter Burj Khalifa, that building would jut out of my globe .00002 m or 0.02 mm = a fiftieth of a millimeter, something like a flake of silt. The texture of the globe material would obstruct any view of curvature.
How about in an airplane at 12,000 m? I'd be .00029 m or .29 mm = one third of a millimeter above the globe - something like a grain of salt. *Maybe* I could see a bit of curve, but I doubt it.
The ISS orbits at about 395,000 m. That would put it about .00944 m or 9.44 mm above my globe, about the length of a coffee bean. Yes, you should be able to see curvature from there (protip - they do).
So that planets in the game are small, or the view is exaggerated. Remember: it's a game. They need to keep your interest, so interesting things need to happen quickly. That's all.
Or play Kerbal Space Program. That's relatively realistic.
There's a channel on YouTube called "Primitive Technology". It's a guy building stone tools and pottery in a forest.
Cameron Lewis
That honestly sounds sort of interesting. I wonder if he has ever thought about starting a new society from scratch. It sounds like a great way to escape the realities of feminism taking over.
Tyler Diaz
So I looked this guy and up not sure why, but this is peeking my interest.
In the comments of this video he says that he bought the land so does he actually live here?
Why do I want to suck this man's dick when I am a male-to-female tranny who would most likely die in the wild?
Connor Hill
Women tend to like men who can provide and survive for themselves since it means that it allows for them to care for their women. You of feminine mind most likely find this quality in a man appealing and therefore are willing to trade blowjobs for security. Having a penis means that your own asset you have to offer is your mouth.
If more homeless people had this kind of smarts they would construct cities.
Brody Perez
What's going on here?
Wyatt Brown
Some tranny's non-existent pussy is wet.
Carter Wood
Make sure you turn captions on.
William Nguyen
What? He doesn't talk in these videos?
Jonathan Parker
then how do telescopes work when you zoom in. Does the telescope bend the ecurvature.
Jose Carter
where are the stars
it's fucking fake everytime
wtf no that is a cartoon. the horizon is always up to eye level
Evan Morales
No he doesn't talk. If you enjoy figuring stuff out you can watch without captions and read the description after if you feel you missed why he did anything. But he leaves a ton of context in the video itself so watching it without can be kinda like solving a puzzle. I quite enjoy his videos.
Luke Cook
>where are the stars
The exposure is too low.
Grayson Taylor
Draw a circle or a curve on a piece of paper. Then look at the paper from edge on, even though you can see the entire circle, its appearance approaches a straight line the closer to edge on you get. But as you back away and get above the circle, the curvature becomes clearly defined. Because you are so close to the surface, and the horizon curves away from you equally, and incredibly gradually, in all directions, the curvature resembles a flat line. You have to get further away to see the Earth's curvature, or find a planet with tighter curvature.
On smaller bodies, local terrain will almost always obscure the curvature.
Eli Thompson
>impying "people" like him know or care about what exposure is when building that "argument"
Kevin Sanders
Sir, I think you forgot to take your medication this morning.
Can this be done on a globe (I mean a literal globe)?
I thank you for this information. My answer was addressed above since I really wanted to know why I could always see a curvature in video game worlds even if the planet is large (see: Universim) and then it hit me that the size of the planet is the most logical reason for why we on the surface of Earth cannot see the curvature whenever we walk down the sidewalk.
It was because video game planets are much more smaller than Earth.
So I had my question and suspicion confirmed regardless of how babbyish it was.
Would the units in Universim see their world flat though? I would assume so because they are so small while the camera always remains at a distance. Is this correct?
I really want to play this game, but I am kind of a retard when it comes to constructing or engineering things like this in games.
Camden Jackson
The planet in that video still looks relatively small in comparison to the size of the units. They would probably see plenty of curvature.
It can't really be feasibly done on a literal globe. If your globe was 1 meter in diameter, then mount everest would be roughly .66mm in height. About 2/3 of a mm, on a globe larger than most I have ever seen. A person compared to your average globe would be absolutely tiny.
Juan Barnes
The only video game that managed to accurately capture the size of the Earth would be Space Engineers?
Do you have to know a lot about space vessels in order to start out or is this less overwhelming unlike Kerbal Space Program?
Thomas Reed
Space engineers has some pretty small planets too.. Large for the game for sure, but still small relative to Earth. The space travel in space engineers is far less realistic than kerbal space program, so you don't need to know a whole lot about actual physics to be able to move around in space engineers. You don't have to balance thrust, or worry about center of mass, etc.
Elite: Dangerous has some pretty large landable bodies.. It has actual sized planets, etc, but you can only bring your ship close to or land on the smaller ones.. These are still far bigger than I have seen in most other space games though. Once you get on a little rover driving at 10 m/s even the smallest landable moons seem astronomically huge. Elite: Dangerous also has some gas giants and stars that are true-to-life huge but you fly around so fast in your ship you can't really grasp how big they really are.
Connor Scott
Space Engineers isn't in the slightest realistic. The game someone has been showing in here, Space Engine, is a different game.
Kerbal Space Program has a simple patched-conics model of orbital mechanics, smaller but denser worlds, and simple rocket engines that use magic fuel that doesn't evaporate. There are, however, mods for KSP that add n-body gravity, the actual solar system in full scale and realistic engines and fuels.
Austin Rodriguez
I miss read his post. I installed Space Engineers for nothing.
Aaron Parker
there are mods for ksp that have earth in full size
Gabriel Peterson
I cannot zoom into known planets like Mars and Earth?
No, lenses are magic and spheres are zionist propoganda
William Stewart
semi on-topic: I've written a program to generate a spherical game world by subdividing an icosahedron Each vertex contains a vector of data - let's just say it's 1-length and represents temperature I want to do something like a convolution with this mesh - so if I set the "kernel" up to be the equivalent of a Gaussian blur, I could initially have one "hot" vertex & the rest "cold", then run it a bunch of times and watch the temperature even out over time I'm too much of a brainlet to implement this though :( I can do a quick-and-dirty blur by looking at the neighbour vertices in the mesh but this is unsatisfactory - no guarantee that the edges are the same length I feel like the "kernel" should be three dimensional with the dimensions representing rotations around three axes Obviously it won't line up perfectly like an actual convolution on a matrix, so some interpolation will be required, but that's not too hard Has anyone done this? Do I need to learn quaternions?
I just had another thought. If you were to stand on the dwarf planet of Pluto then would you be able to see its curvature from the surface and if the answer is no, then what is the smallest possible celestial body that you could see it's curvature?
Ethan Hall
>Or play Kerbal Space Program. That's relatively realistic. The celestial bodies in KSP are drastically smaller than IRL. The Jupiter analogue, Jool, is the size of Earth for example.
William Powell
Mods can give you a full scale real solar system, and even someone is working on n-body orbital mechanics for full on Lagrange points and stuff like that
Benjamin Brooks
>That's still not high enough to see more than a limited part of a hemisphere. Thats one of the reasons space freaks me out. i cannot fathom the scale.
I just imagine if i was looking down at the earth from the iss that i would feel like im falling in to it. Its just so big and there is literally nothing else around
Liam White
>Mods can give you a full scale real solar system, True
>even someone is working on n-body orbital mechanics for full on Lagrange points and stuff like that I might need to reinstall once that comes out desu
Jaxon Adams
Nice focus.
Caleb Wright
>In videogames why do curved planets have a a curved horizon? >*Shows you space engine, a videogame* >No that's a video game! It can't be relevant to my argument Veeky Forums, here we have a flat earther in it's natural environment. Notice how it reacts violently to any information contrary to its inane belief system. Truly fascinating...
all flat earthers have not understood the concept of focal length and perspective distortion.
fyi each of your eyes sees more like a small focal length (fisheye) your brain does the magic and with information of both eyes gives you bigger focal length. but its only perceived!
I state that you will find no photos from earths horizon shot with 17mm that have a perfectly straight horizon. but the difference will be small!
most of flat earthers also have no feeling of how gigantic our planet really is...
How do flat earthers explain satellites? I took a 30 second exposure of the night sky with my DSLR and a satellite passed through the frame. Afterwards I fired up Stellarium and went back to the same time the picture was taken and there was one satellite that was in the same region as the picture. I compared the satellites trail in my image to the one in Stellarium and it was a perfect match.
The Earth is a sphere. Your evidence is shit. Go to college and get educated. Stop voting for celebrities who run for public office. These are telltale signs of autism.
>The Earth is a sphere The accepted curve is 8(miles squared) or 8in.(distance in miles^2)
Which means to take the square root of the distance traveled in miles and then multiply that figure by eight inches.
So for example, if you traveled one mile, the formula would look something like this;
8(1×1) = 8 Inches of total curvature
And for the first ten miles traveled of curvature in inches…
8(1×1) = 8 Inches of total curvature 8(2×2) = 32 Inches of total curvature 8(3×3) = 72 Inches of total curvature 8(4×4) = 128 Inches of total curvature 8(5×5) = 200 Inches of total curvature 8(6×6) = 288 Inches of total curvature 8(7×7) = 392 Inches of total curvature 8(8×8) = 512 Inches of total curvature 8(9×9) = 648 Inches of total curvature 8(10×10) = 800 Inches of total curvature
Yet we can't measure any curvature AT ALL!! FROM ANY DISTANCE!!!
You have answers for all of that on google or you can go ask in your local astronomical center.
Jeremiah Bailey
Your spacial reasoning skills suck holy shit
Christopher Morgan
go kill yourself now!
can't believe we are breathing the same air.
that picture has DISTORTED PERSPECTIVE if you measure from it you are retarded to the max
Logan Morris
>where are the stars It's fucking daytime, why would there be stars?
Brody Bell
Satellites are just lights that move in the sky, you have no better an idea what they are than anyone else. No, they're not machines that are in a gravitational orbit around the the earth, that's sci-fi retardation (satellites began in science fiction magazines, look it up).
Tyler Phillips
>Satellites aren't real because a book mentioned them.
Luis Myers
can anyone find a real pic of a satellite? One thats NOT CGI??
I wonder what you call a "real pic," given your ilk's propensity to label all imagery that goes against your trolling as fake. But I'll bite for now.
Satellites move very fast, are typically not very bright, and are very tiny. So you need a largish telescope to image the beasties, and you need orbital elements that can be programmed into your telescope's guidance system to track them for the duration of the exposure. That's pretty specialized and expensive equipment, given most amateur astronomer want to see stars, and professional want to get grants. Protip: grants are not awarded to people who take ground-based images of satellites to satisfy the obstinate cravings of lunatics.
Not to say it doesn't happen. There are two common instances: the inadvertent streak of an interloping satellite photobombing an otherwise wonderful astrophoto that took hours to set up, and the ISS, which is very bright indeed. So bright, it is easily visible to the naked eye from any brightly-lit city's downtown. Tracking is still needed, but it's a common target because the results are easier than with a much dimmer object.
Now, you *could* Google or DuckDuckGo or Yahoo search for such images, but I'm quite sure you have no interest in actually seeing 'real' images, you just want to get a (You). So here you go, and have a good wank at being acknowledged.
FYI: "you're all gullible sheep!!" isn't actually a convincing argument.
Jeremiah Torres
>It's not a satellite with people it's a satellite without people. Explain how satellites work on a flat earth tard.
Luis Bell
>If I dont know what it is, no-one knows what it is! Unfortunately for you, you aren't actually the gatekeeper of all human knowledge. Its entirely possible for people who aren't you to know things you dont know, its called "not being a retard".
Just think about the logistics of the ISS for a minute. 17,000mph, and people have supposedly docked with it many times without any accidents. It's nonsense. youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY
Weather balloons, high altitude planes, drones etc.
