The problem is that the flat Earth model doesn't match the photograph, no matter how you zoom or pan. There's a big chunk of the mountain missing in the photograph. Zooming doesn't change that.

Their flight plan was to go from Mauritius to the geographic South Pole, then from there to Chile. If they hadn't taken a right at the geographic South Pole, they wouldn't have gotten to Chile. Does that answer your question?

You could build the sandbox at a wide range of sizes. The issue is the Kinect camera's limited resolution. The larger you make the box, the worse the software's internal representation of the sand surface is going to be. This especially holds for elevation measurements. If you make the box twice the size, meaning you have to put the camera at twice the height above the box to capture it all, elevation resolution will decrease by a factor of four. I recommend 40"x30" because it is a good compromise between play size and scanning resolution.

BEHOLD THE MIGHTY PINK PLASTIC SHOVEL!

No, it's old, but I've made some updates, and a lot of people who own AR Sandboxes don't know the total of all features in there, so I figured I needed a detailed overview.

You mean like this: imgur.com/a/mYImUUU How exactly does that prove that Earth is flat?

they just couldn't help making that 60 degree turn over the Ant... what a waste of effort and ballers eat it up... a little presupposition goes a long way

@@okreylos that link goes to the infamous pizza pie map that has been debunked years ago; no one uses the AE map to model 'flat' earth; that was a 'flat earth society' Psyop from way back and ballers still cling to it like a security blanket. Great video, though... thanks

@@AbsurdityViewer Feel free to plot the flight path on what you think is the correct map and post it here.

@@okreylos thanks but no. I already gave you a route in a different comment below... feel free to check it out. no 60 degree turn required.

It's not weird at all if you think about it for, like, ten seconds. How would a circumpolar flight get from the North Pole to Perth or Auckland, or vice versa?

@okreylos surely we can fly to Perth or Auckland or Buenos Aires or Cape Town.

Maybe look at a map. What's between the North Pole and Auckland? What's between the North Pole and Perth?

@@okreylos what's between the North Pole and Buenos Aires?

@@okreylos what's between the North Pole and Cape Town?

Thanks, it is really fun for how simple it is. And yes, it does run on a potato. When I was filming this, I was running on a good development PC, but my daughter was playing from a 10-year old PC with a GeForce 680 (not a typo). Doesn't get much more potato than that. :D

How does the fact that light rays bend downwards cut off the bottoms of far-away objects?

@@okreylos the bottom (lower side) of the object disappears first since it is closer to a denser medium. That is why the ship starts disappearing from the bottom up because of the higher humidity closer to the water surface. The rays from the bottom start bending and don’t reach your eyes.

@@ljns5494 in which comic book did you get your knowledge from, kid? 🤔😂

@@Alan-ez6ji I am probably older than your dad. Get lost

@@ljns5494 In that case, that would be really embarrassing if an old dude didn't manage to get past kindergarten level of education... Maybe you can try on-line classes of elementary school so they don't know your age?

How does light bending downwards make the bottom of a far-away mountain disappear?

If you’re on a curved planet, that laser light refraction would follow the curve due to refraction and therefore not be going straight. As in, not level horizontal

You can see the same simulation without side walls in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqq5qWaLo7-VjLc But anyway, the existence of side walls in this one is irrelevant. Imagine that there are more, identical, column of gas on the other sides of both walls, and then imagine removing the walls. Gas now bounces against gas instead of against walls. Nothing meaningful changes. The point is that the gas does not escape *out of the top of the container.*

Stars are very close just above the firmament in the waters above.

@@SputnickSpooner-jg5gi that is not an answer. , tell me why we can see that all stars rotate around Polaris when we are in the northern hemiSPHERE, and they magically rotate in opposite direction as you go south past the equator, where Polaris is nowhere to be seen??? Try again, kid.

"if u think if we went to the moon and never heard of the van allen belt" I think we went to the moon, and I have heard of the Van Allen Belt. What's your point?

@@okreylos well lets see for 1 need at least a 10 ft thick wall of lead to protect ur non researching ass safe...and if u had common cents u would know that we donr have any vehicle like that...2 u are so lazy to belive what nasa feeds u? so it makes cents that a top nasshole said the reason they just dont dont use the same thin ass spaceship to go back is because they took it apart and its such a painstakingly process to put it back together that thats the reason they havent been back to the moon....u belive that baffoon talk? by nassholes who change everything they say is fact every 10 years ...the same people who put nazi war criminas i charge..we cant even get people past the iss but u go right ahead and belive our trust worthy govenment

"need at least a 10 ft thick wall of lead to protect ur non researching ass safe" Who told you that nonsense, and why did you believe them?

@@okreylos dumbass get off ur lazy ass and go check.. ill even help u out this time. NASA u lazy couch poe-tate-toe

@@okreylos this is exactly why round eye always goes to , "who would say that" ....bro put down the chips and go find out

I think my CGI is awesome. It's a 10-meter resolution digital elevation model of all of California, with the option of projecting it onto a flat plane or a sphere of any radius. That's pretty slick. Not too many people can do that, and I'm certain you're not one of them.

@@okreylos i dont care about your skills, i disapprove lack of principles, how people lie and guide to deception

"i disapprove lack of principles, how people lie and guide to deception" How do you reconcile that ethical stance with being a flat Earther?

@@okreylos you Will find out when you grow

@@edensinpecado6191 but you haven't grown yet, you are still in kindergarten....

Sorry, I prefer evidence over stories, as nice as they may be.

@@okreylos can you explain the shroud of Turin, Fatima, how historians and archeologists don’t think the Bible is fiction as they’ve found evidence of everything in it .?

"they’ve found evidence of everything in it" The only evidence that matters here is evidence pertaining to the shape of Earth. Have they found any of that? Who has found it?

It's a bit more complicated than that. Geometrically, a great circle path is a straight line, meaning you don't have to turn to stay on it. But: how do pilots determine whether they are flying in a straight line or not? Planes always yaw left/right without the pilot's interaction, and pilots continuously need to counteract those random course changes. They do that by using their heading indicators, which are basically compasses and show the angle towards north. The problem is that, when flying on a great circle route that is not the equator or a meridian, your compass direction will change continuously. So when they want to fly along a great circle route, pilots have to continuously change course, as in their heading angle relative to north, to stay on a straight line. To be clear, by "change course" I don't mean "turn." I mean that as they are flying straight, their compass direction changes, and they need to be aware in which direction they have to fly at any point in order to make the correct corrections. That's why great circle routes are hard to plan and hard to follow without on-board computers or GPS.

"Computer simulation is not proof" That's flat Earther talk!

If you deny facts you belong in a metal institution.

@@okreylosfake bible ain't proof

Just watch the video. Maybe you will understand.

@@okreylosI did, I deal with facts not ifs, ignorance is a choice, it's a free country, free to be an idiot if you wish

Would you please explain what you mean by that, because I' have no idea what you are even talking about.

That's about right, when ignoring atmospheric refraction. With standard refraction taken into account, the hidden height drops to 8,908 feet. Which leaves 3,700 feet of visible mountain. Without knowing that area or the conditions under which the photo was taken in detail, the picture looks consistent with the globe. Rule of thumb: When someone claims a certain observation would be impossible on a globe Earth, that claim ends up wrong every time it's checked.

@@okreylos How does standard refraction factor into that? I'm not too familiar with optical physics. Does that mean how light is refracted at the horizon or over water? So there is nothing to see there that is exactly the amount of mountain you would expect to see if the earth was a globe did I get that right?

Under normal conditions, the atmosphere is optically denser at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. This causes light travelling through the atmosphere to refract towards the ground. In short and in general, light above Earth's surface doesn't travel in straight lines, but in slightly downward-curved arcs. This curvature cancels out some of Earth's geometric curvature, virtually lifting far-away objects above their actual geometric positions, and making it possible to see farther than it were possible if Earth had no atmosphere. Diagram: imgur.com/gallery/refraction-PBCvr3T

@@okreylos I knew that there light travels differently and some phenomena are explained by it. But thanks for the explanation. I will take a look at it.

Why not? And what even is your point?

@@okreylos Circumnavigation requires following 1 longitudinal line without deviation

@@heavymetalnewsdesk That is a wrong and useless definition of "circumnavigation." Where did you hear that? The *actual* definition of polar circumnavigation by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale is: 1. The course needs to be at least 21,000 miles (34,000 kilometres). 2. The flight must have been made to a control point north of 75 degrees north latitude and a control point south of 75 degrees south latitude. 3. The crossing of the equator from north to south must be separated from the crossing of the equator from south to north by 90 to 180 degrees of longitude. 4. The flight must be completed within 365 days in the same airplane. This flight satisfied all requirements.

@@okreylos because you can't prove that you crossed Antarctica unless you follow one longitudinal line that's why

@@heavymetalnewsdesk That's why your definition is useless. Longitudinal lines *end* at the poles. You cannot possibly cross Antarctica by following only one of them. Maybe you meant "following one great circle without deviation?" But even that is a useless definition. Anyway, check 1:50 in the video. The flight follows one line of latitude, without deviation, into Antarctica to the South Pole, and then another line of latitude, without deviation, from the South Pole out of Antarctica. Did it not cross Antarctica in the process?

Neat idea! Here you go: imgur.com/a/mYImUUU Now would you please explain how, after flying due south from Mauritius (D) *to* the South Pole (E), they arrived in Punta Arenas, Chile (G), after flying due north *from* the South Pole (F)? Teleportation? Wormhole? Magic? Gremlins? (Hint: On a globe, (E) and (F) are the same point.)

@@okreylos Jet trails?!

No, it's @madebymyself.

@@okreylos lol I was just trying to tag someone so they can see it

earth-planets-space.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40623-019-1048-0

"Why are skyscrapers straight up?" Let's focus on this. Would you please explain that to me? You are at least the tenth person who has brought up this issue, and not a single one who came before you has ever elaborated on it. They must all have been very confused. Since you are a smart one, you shouldn't have a problem answering my simple question. You ready? Here it comes: Imagine, purely for the sake of discussion, that you are standing on a globe of radius 3,959 miles. Now imagine you are looking at a really tall skyscraper 50 miles away. By how much should that skyscraper be "tilted?"

@@okreylos Enough to see by eye. Don't need to give you a figure because they aren't tilted. Why can you navigate on a flat earth map and not a globe. They don't match. Also on your question about being 50 miles away, you might not see the buiding if only 400-500 ft tall at ground level. We're about 8 inches square permile. So 50 miles away you need to be high up. You belive this than. not possible with your model kzbin.info/www/bejne/mXKaqYijfa52nsk

"Enough to see by eye. Don't need to give you a figure because they aren't tilted." That simply won't do. If you don't know, how can you be sure that it's enough to see? What if it's, say, less than 5°? Would you be able to detect if a skyscraper were leaning away from you by 5°? Also, "I don't have to because they aren't" is circular reasoning at its finest. Let's do an over/under. At 50 miles distance, on a globe of radius 3,959 miles, would a skyscraper lean away from you by more than 5°, or by less than 5°?

@@okreylos The globe is the same as a ball, right ? If the earth is curced like you state when you place a plumb-bob from the top of the 50 story building at each corner the bottom floor corner will be a different location. Cannot line up with your glode. Won't be square. When you're looking in any direction at a distance they will lean away from the viewer. A carpenter, autobody man or artist all have good prespective and can see when something is off slightly. With the specs you provide you should see a tilt especially from an airplane looking down from a distance. Should be very noticeable at distance or even close as well. The earth is still and the only moving object a plane can land on is an aircraft carrier. Your questions don't amount to anything, use your eyes. You can simply see too far. I've travel on the water and some days could see over 75 miles to shore from 14-16 ft up. Your own radius figures say no you can't. How does that work ?

I see a picture forming. You, like all other flat Earth proponents who have been able to actually communicate their belief to me, seem to suffer from an inability to understand scale, specifically the scale of Earth. You claim that Earth must be flat because far-away skyscrapers would be leaning away from you otherwise. You claim that Earth must be flat because tall buildings would be out of plumb otherwise. Here is the secret: far-away skyscrapers *are* leaning away from you. Tall buildings *are* out of plumb. The issue is that your intuition on *how much* they are so is completely disconnected from reality. Earth is really big. Let's talk tall buildings for a moment. Take the Empire State Building. It is 381 meters tall, and 57 meters wide. If Earth were a globe as they say, the building would be 0.0005° out of plumb, or 1/2000th of a degree. *Do you honestly think you would be able to detect that with a plumb bob?* If you actually do, please say so. Put differently, if the walls of the Empire State Building were perfectly plumb, the top floor would be 3.9mm or 1/7" wider than the bottom floor. Again, do you think you would be able to see that at a glance? Be honest with yourself. Now, since we're talking about scale, back to my question: by how much would a skyscraper 50 miles away from you lean away from you? More or less than 10°? Just answer that.

You sweet summer child. Read any of the other comments on this video, and weep.

The oceans are "leveled out." Earth isn't "chasing" the Sun. It's orbiting around it. The Sun will destroy Earth. In a couple of billion years, give or take. You're welcome.

@@okreylos thanks for your reply. It tells me your not inteligent enough to argue with. Be safe n well till the sun hunts down the earth and destroys it.

*you're

@@okreylos 😂 .... you just proved your not only not smart enough, but ..."YOUR "...also a narcissist. Now " theirs " the truth. 😂

@@okreylos did you deleat my post saying "your " a narcissist. 😂.

No.

Yes, obviously, but since all the elevation data are relative to a WGS84 reference ellipsoid, the southern hemisphere will simply exhibit a very slightly higher average elevation.

@@okreylos How come all those pictures of the blue marble show it perfectly circular?

Because Earth has a diameter of 12,742km, or almost 8,000 miles. The southern hemisphere is about 100m wider, give or take, or 300 feet. That's a difference of 0.0008%. You actually think you would see that difference in a picture?

Lol. okay

Refraction wouldn't hide 2/3 of a whole mountain, especially not on a clear day.

Would you please explain how refraction creates the illusion of rounding?

@@okreylos Look for information on the Internet.

@@darkdakrioadenitis9688 No, I want you to explain it. Because I don't believe that you understand why what you said is wrong.

@@okreylos What can I explain to you if there are rivers on your globe that are 6670 km long, despite the fact that along their entire length there is a huge hump of earth.

morons.