/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9750789
>ah yes, as we all know, optics works entirely differently on large scales then on small scales.
Well, gravity seems to, doesn't it?

>I'm providing you with a simple experiment that you can do in your mum's basement, and you're throwing every tantrum you've got in you to have an excuse not to try it. what's the matter, big guy? scared to collect a little evidence?
I understand your example and accept it, but only as proof of a flat earth because that's what it is (local light source shining upon a flat surface). Now try and prove this with a sun that is outside of the closed system it is shining upon, as well as it shining upon a sphere.

>the angle of outgoing reflected light is dependent on the angle of incoming light. to return to the magazine model
You mean the flat model?

>according to the timestamp and admitted location, the sun would have been overhead in Cambodia at the time of the Dogcam footage. how do you reconcile that with the claim that the sun was right overhead in the Black Sea and creating a "hotspot"?
I can reconcile that as something consistent with a local sun above a flat plane.

>and again, why have the alleged "hotspots" never been observed from within them? and why do observers at different locations see the same "hotspot" in different places?
This brings up an interesting point. The subjectivity of light. For example, person A is on the beach looking out at the ocean during a sunset. He sees a reflection of light from the sun on the water that goes straight in his direction. Person B is 5 miles away on the same beach, watching the same sunset, but also sees the reflection of the sun's light across the water come to him. This is again proof of perspective altering the sun's light.