/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10018976
>pseudosciences like flat earth and climate change
Nice false equivalence you got there. Flat earth is brainlet trash, but anthropogenic climate change has a mountain of evidence you can't get around. It's why your denialtard arguments are logical fallacies or ignorant falsehoods 99% of the time, and misleading distortions the other 1%.

>>10018976
>calls flat earth pseudoscience
>posts a retarded image of the earth that has clearly been distorted by lenses

You know when the ISS is supposedly orbiting the earth, does it ever tilt perpendicular to the earth to maintain the same camera angle? Every video I've seen looks like it's just moving over a flat plane and never needs to adjust its angle.

>>10019688
Is the ISS tilting perpendicular to the earth to maintain the same exact camera angle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjs6fnpPWy4

Looks like it's moving over a flat surface to me, and the "curvature" is digital manipulation (and very poorly done might I add).

I demand an answer regarding the camera angle of the ISS.

>>10019688
>>10019744
Wait, are you using same retard argument like "why plane is not constatly diping its nose when flying"?

>>10019688
>>10019815
None of these poor quality gifs/webms show any proof, only your delusional imagination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdMMmclGVc

Is this Jewish sci op?

>>10019827
Same principle.

>>10019834
Can you just answer the question about the camera angle? Why are you dodging?

>>10019744
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7d2dJgDfqI

>>10019841
Some valid experiments but ultimately done to discredit flat earth. They wouldn't need to do this if there was no truth to it.

Dome model is also retarded bullshit.

>>10019852
"valid"

"dome"

It's all projection

>>10019815
I demand you use Google before asking stupid questions: www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/26/how-does-the-international-space-station-keep-its-orientation/

tldr: control moment gyroscopes + torque equilibrium attitude

>>10019851
Hours of footage like this, they're so bad at it.

>>10019855
What do you mean?

>>10019858
No brainlet, I'm talking about the ISS as it moves above the earth, the orientation must constantly change with the earth to maintain the same camera angle. What you posted doesn't explain how it does this.

>>10019880
Retard, it does. What about attitude don't you understand? I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand the basic terminology of the question you're asking, but that's not my fault.

>>10019688
I demand video evidence of this apparent constant camera angle thing

>>10019899
>Retard, it does. What about attitude don't you understand?
I understand that your attitude stinks. Gyros + torque is meaningless. Can you provide a peer review paper showing how this works, instead of forbes.com? Why forbes.com?

>>10019912
That's my point, the angle remains so perfect that it looks like the earth is rotating under a stationary ISS, or the ISS is actually moving above a flat, stationary plane.

>>10019935
I don't know exactly what you mean by that though, do you have a video showing what you mean?
Obviously if the camera is attached onto the ISS then the space station appears stationary from the POV of the camera?

>>10019958
See gif related, using the seeker box makes it more obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjs6fnpPWy4

It just looks too perfect for it to be orientating itself with with the earth maintaining the same camera angle.

>>10019997
Ahh I see what you mean, the station itself is staying at the same angle and isn't rotating at all while the camera is rotating to keep the horizon level for dat epic long take.
You can see this at 1:26:50 when the solar panel is in view and rotates away while the horizon stays in the same place. The camera is rotating to keep the horizon in place so the solar panel gets moved further out of shot. We know all the exact details of the ISS orbit so it's not too tough to work out how the camera should rotate to do this.

>>10020022
>You can see this at 1:26:50 when the solar panel is in view and rotates away while the horizon stays in the same place. The camera is rotating to keep the horizon in place so the solar panel gets moved further out of shot.
You sure that's not the solar panels themselves moving? Because they can move.

>>10020034
AFAIK the solar panels can only rotate around their long axis (the red), the relative rotation between the station and the Earth causes the blue rotation

>>10018976
Itt flat Earthers forget cameras can move too
Also, the ISS has reaction control

>>10020054
Doth not appear to be the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lAig7Ur5aY

>>10018976

>>10018976
>shut it down

>>10020067
>Itt flat Earthers forget cameras can move too
But that just adds even more complexity. Also, the "live" stream of the ISS with the astronauts standing outside of the ISS never had to change the angle of the camera, they just pointed it in the same direction.

>>10020072
Fair play, I'll try and find some footage of spacewalks where you can see the rotation

>>10020093
If you can't find one feel free to CGI one instead using this.

>>10019929
Here you go, buddy: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=Torque+Equilibrium+Attitude&btnG=

>>10018976
YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNKYOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK YOU FLUNK

>>10019848
>Same principle.
Oh, I see.
Consider suicide

>>10019848
>Can you just answer the question about the camera angle? Why are you dodging?
That was about those wembs and gifs not your retarded question.
Question is simple. ISS, just like plane are flying (asuming no change is made) level flight path related to earth curved suface. Plane constatly is fighting force of gravity by use of force of lift. While things on orbit are constatly falling to earth but also have enough velocity that it can circle around earth

>>10020100
Too bad their CGI looks fake simply because the moon is too large and you can see both the stars and the moon at the same time.

>>10018976
Yes, but as Rome had taught us. Bad shows get the fucking AXE.