/sci/ - Science & Math

Daily reminder that Earth is a disc

>>11960896

comets don't have tails from their movement. they have tails from the solar wind.

they're dirty iceballs, remember. when they get closer to the sun, the light it emits causes some of the ice and gas to sublimate off, and the blast of high-energy ions coming off the sun (solar wind) sweeps that mixture of gas and dust into a long tail pointing away from the sun. you'll notice that when a comet is moving away from the sun, its tail is actually ahead of it.

and when a comet isn't near enough to a star to be sufficiently heated, they don't have tails no matter how fast they go.

>>9748065
>muh common sense
I've already demonstrated that common sense isn't reliable.
>Webm related.
ah, so when the sun sets below the horizon it's just a trick of perspective, but when (effectively) parallel beams of light appear to converge to a point, it's PROOF POSITIVE, huh?
wrong, retard. that's actually a trick of perspective. find the proper angle and it becomes abundantly clear that the rays are in fact parallel.
>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/02/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/#.Wv3DkYgvxhE

>why would it have so much trouble shining through clouds if it was still the same distance away?
because it's shining through MORE clouds. as the sun sets, its rays strike the earth at a more oblique angle, meaning that it passes through more of the atmosphere, meaning that it's absorbed more.

>how the light disappears when the sun has already disappeared, it doesn't disappear evently across the whole sky, it disappears in a narrow path that gets smaller and smaller, suggesting a local light source moving further away, taking the light with it.
wrong. refer back to
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8
and see how the pre-sunrise sky glow is distributed along the whole horizon on that side of the sky.

>If the photographer held the camera straight and flat, the horizon will be at eye level.
the photograph has no blur in it, contradicting your entirely unsupported claim of shaky hands.
and the angle of the camera has no bearing on where the horizon is in relation to the vanishing point. try it yourself! go down to the railroad tracks and take a bunch of photos looking off into the distance with the camera at different angles. you'll see that the camera angle has no effect; all that matters is that the guide lines used to establish the vanishing point are indeed horizontal.
you are literally making shit up now in a pathetic attempt to explain away your delusional model's utter failure to explain any of the evidence.

>>8939338
invertebrate paleophysiology (still considering paleoecology) for never getting a job outside of academia ever. T_T

>>8903282
if earth isn't flat how come there are no dinosaurs then?

Just with humans instead of dinosaurs

>>8733495

>small organisms with lower caloric demands better able to withstand ecosystem collapse than large resource-intensive organisms
>I just don't get it

of course, mass extinctions are a lot more complicated than that, but that's the primer. remember, it wasn't the meteoroid that killed all those things; it was the collapse of the global food web caused by the scorching of much of the globe and the ensuing impact winter killing off a lot of plant life.