/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9750314
>it's not proof of the true size of the sun brainlet, why is this so difficult to understand?
because it's a 100% false claim. again, think of a solar filter as a really strong pair of sunglasses. do sunglasses change the size of the sun viewed through them?
...you don't actually think that the glare seen when photographing the sun is actually part of it, do you? do you actually believe that obvious photographic artifacts are part of the sun? because that and severe mental retardation are the only possible explanations for your idiotic comments.

>Show me a sunset using a solar filter from a plane
already done. >>9748242
aerial footage of the setting sun through a solar filter, boom. now you'll come up with an excuse to throw that out.

>>9750401
>Webm shows it gets smaller and further away.
anyone can look at your webm and clearly see that you're lying.
>Why doesn't the sun go down behind the horizon
...except it obviously does.

you can clearly see the last edge of the sun slipping behind the curve of the earth; all that appears to "shrink" is the massive amounts of glare and bloom (again, why is shrinking only ever visible in such low-quality videos with rampant camera artifacts?) which recede as the setting sun is dimmed by the oblique angle through the atmosphere.
this goes beyond proof-by-shitty-instrumentation and approaches proof-by-hallucinatory-tendency-to-see-proof-in-footage-that-actually-disproves.

>>8117252
you went wrong by taking only the positive square root of (4x). y could be equal to 2x^0.5 or to -2x^0.5
I suggest instead of taking square roots, plugging in the second equation in the first.

y^2 = 4x
(2x-4)^2 = 4x
4x^2 - 16x + 16 = 4x
x^2 - 5x + 4 = 0
(x-4)(x-1)=0

I also advise integrating with respect to y rather than with respect to x, or you'll have to split the first equation in half to deal with the two halves of the parabola separately.

UPEI

Biology

Student Loans all the way, and also out my pocket

Yes I Will

I payed it myself

Probably get a Bioscience degree

>>7298104
you make a good point. it's honestly problematic that the occasional actual skeptics (people playing devil's advocate, people looking for problems in the models and theory to keep researchers on their toes and make them tighten up their work) are drowned out by the vast sea of "skeptics". we should have some actual criticism that's not based in a badly flawed and highly incomplete understanding of the science and motivated by belief in a conspiracy theory.

apologies in advance: I cannot into LateX

first equals sign is just factoring out an x^2 from both the top and the bottom. notice that if you distribute the stuff in the middle, you get the stuff on the left.

then the cool stuff happens. because x is very large (going to positive infinity, right?), we can cancel out the x^2 terms, because x^2/x^2 = 1 UNLESS x=0. And for the parts of the graph we care about, x!=0.
And so you're left with lim(x->inf) (1-4/x^2)/(1-1/x^2). Because x is very large, 1/x^2 is vanishingly small, so the 1/x^2 and 4/x^2 terms become insignificant and basically just get crossed out. The expression then approximates 1/1, which is what you're left with, and 1 is your limit.

Make sense?