/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10020125
the problem with NASA is that they give you a nice panoramic shot instead of flat carboard cutoout you fucking deserve

>>10020141
Doesn't stop it being far too big. Do you think if it was taken with a standard camera it would shrink to the correct size? Not a chance.

>>10020157
>fishlens makes human eye third of the face
>fishlens can't make hurricane third of the third of hemisphere that's actually visible in the shot

you are an imbecile

>>10020161
>fishlens makes human eye third of the face
I think you need your eyes checked.
>fishlens can't make hurricane third of the third of hemisphere that's actually visible in the shot
You realise that the lens will also make the earth bigger where it makes the hurricane bigger?

>>10020181
I think you need your head in a doorframe while I violently slam it until your body evicts your worthless soul

>>10020208
thats some pretty top notch ms paint work. nice mate.

>>10020208
Good shit anon wow

>>10020208
You've just proven a fish eye lens could not produce the image. Is pic related a fish eye as well?

>>10020157
You seem to assume that the rin field of a hurricane is the same size as the cloud cover.

This is in error.

In addition, of course, you do not seem to understand about wide angle lenses, but that has already been pointed out to you.

>>10020181

>You realise that the lens will also make the earth bigger where it makes the hurricane bigger?

Note picture at >>10020141


Wide angle lenses do not work the way you are claiming they do.

>>10020240
>Is pic related a fish eye as well?

It is wide angle lens, yes. Note distortion of arm/hand.


>>10020248
"rin" should be "rain."

>>10020240
>You've just proven a fish eye lens could not produce the image

are you for fucking real?
the whole point of fisheye lens is to capture wider angle
the more of it you have the more you can fit into a frame, but at the cost of massive distortion
the second picture in this thread should suffice to shut you the fuck up, but that would require you to actually process it

>>10020253
>are you for fucking real?


Of course not, have you never seen a troll thread before?

>>10020248
>You seem to assume that the rin field of a hurricane is the same size as the cloud cover.
Rain field? You're just making up words.

>In addition, of course, you do not seem to understand about wide angle lenses, but that has already been pointed out to you.
Since you are clearly an expert, may you post a photo of the earth from the ISS that shows the earth as close to its true size as possible?

>>10020125
The top is a weather map protected on a 2D surface with artificial coloring based on intensity and the bottom is an image taken of the actual Earth and the storm. If you want something useful, say more than "explain this"

>>10020262
The Earth's true size is 25,000 miles around or so, no images are anywhere near that size. But nice moving of goalposts.

>rain field
>making up words.

I may have -- by analogy with "wind field," but you of course knew what I meant. The area that is producing rain, and shows up on radar, is smaller than the area covered in clouds.

>>10020181
anon theres other ways to have friends than to drink the punch

>>10020269
Just so you know. Way back when either dish or direct tv started one of their satellites had a camera filming a live view of the earth, and there was even a channel you could turn to to see it. The camera has long since failed though.

>>10020253
Show me one with very little distortion you utter cretin.

>>10020269
>The Earth's true size is 25,000 miles around or so, no images are anywhere near that size. But nice moving of goalposts.
Nice dodge. Show me what the earth looks like from the ISS with as little distortion as possible. I bet you dodge again with your pathetic 25,000 miles troll.

>I may have -- by analogy with "wind field," but you of course knew what I meant. The area that is producing rain, and shows up on radar, is smaller than the area covered in clouds.
Irrelevant. Trying to muddy the discussion.

>>10020274
What the fuck does that mean?

>>10020141
Legitimate question from a pro-NASA globe Earther here. Why does NASA almost exclusively use wide angle/fisheye lenses? If the goal of these pictures is to generate public interest in space programs by showing them the beauty of space, why dont they use lenses that more closely resemble the way the human eye refracts light?

>>10020283
From the low orbit of ISS, image taken without a wide angle lens do not contain anything close to the complete image of the Earth see the brilliant and moving illustration at >>10020208 -- so such images look like pic related.

>>10020301
They take and release images taken with and without wide angle lenses. The advantage of the wide angle shot is that you can see more of the grandeur you are talking about.

>>10020262
>>10020283

you don't seem to understand that cupola points straight down
at 250 miles looking straight down, earth literally fills your fucking vision
they take wide angle shots for a reason
here is a sideways photo from smaller window
that's the best you get

>>10020301
they do make normal photos but rarely because they can't really sell them as something taken from ISS
those pics are to generate public support and public support comes from nice pictures with heads and tails, not random ass shots of whole fucking lot of ocean and clouds and some patches of land (the shit you get when you snap earth from that pathetic altitude)

I will post a Himawari 8 shot next
it's a Japanese weather sat
it flies 90 higher than ISS so it doesn't nees fisheye lens to fit whole earth

>>10020297
>Show me what the earth looks like from the ISS with as little distortion as possible.

Sure, just posted 2, >>10020310
>>10020315

>Irrelevant. Trying to muddy the discussion.

Not at all-- you compared two image, on that shows the area of the hurricane that s producing rain, one that shows the much larger cloud deck, and seemed to be wondering why they are not the same. The reason is, they are not image of the same thing, plus one is a wide-angle to show the storm in context. A non wide-angle shot would look like >>10020310, which is cool but does not put the storm in any relationship to the rest of the world.


But please continue to pretend to be confused about it, trollbro.

>>10020315
Maybe i just have different priorities than those that NASA is targeting i guess. I just want to see what it looks like up there, but its so hard to find an image that isn’t distorted, or pieced together from distorted images. Thanks anon.

>>10020324
>>10020301

>>10020328
>real time
Link please? I wanna see!

>>10020327
I understand, friend. The problem is always going to be that the human eye is able to seep around, build a gestalt of a whole scene, in a way that still cameras cannot. With ISS in such a low orbit, if you want to see more than a tiny slice, you'll have to put up with wide-angle or composite imagery.


Of course, if NASA did not have a station and was just faking, they could fake exactly the images you are looking for, they could fake the ISS being at a much higher altitude so that they could get the whole Earth into their fake pictures, etc.


But since they are stuck with the real world, that's what they take pictures of.

>>10020328
>>10020332
Disregard. I got excited and forgot google existed for a second.

>>10020298
you don't have to believe ridiculous shit for the sake of identity

>>10020336
Sounds like the ISS needs to lift

>>10020310
> see the brilliant and moving illustration at >>10020208 -- so such images look like pic related
Why don't you make an offer to buy it so you can hang it on your wall next to your ISS and Jack Parsons poster?

Is pic related without a wide angle lens? The object in the frame appears to show this is the case.

>>10020332
it's "real time" tho
it snaps whole hemisphere every 10 minutes I think (it's super high deifinion tho, you can zoom in it)
pic related northeast coast of straya

>>10020351
I wasnt saying that it wasnt real time. Thats just the part that got me excited, so i wanted to call attention to it. Its not in geosynchronous orbit, is it? That would be a bummer.

>>10020324
>that's the best you get
Is that the best you've got?

Is >>10020347 a wide angle lens?

>>10020360
>Its not in geosynchronous orbit, is it? That would be a bummer.
It's just a high altitude tethered weather balloon that takes certain frequencies of data and maps it around a CGI sphere.

>>10020208
>that slight curvature on earth's surface
Truly a masterpiece. Saved.

Get fucked flatfags.

>>10020208
>that slight curvature on earth's surface
Truly a masterpiece. Saved.

>>10020360
>Its not in geosynchronous orbit, is it?
weather sats tend to do that, yes
Japan isn't very insterested in monitoring weather above the Atlantic I'm afraid

>>10020386
The curve represents the uphill battle to get the retarded globe accepted as a mainstream belief, followed by its downfall.

>>10020391
Damn. That makes me sad in the pants.

>>10020324
That pic gives a great sense of the scale of the planet.

>>10020391
Just to confirm, you believe the earth is rotating in that webm, and the sun is stationary (relative to the earth), and the satellite is orbiting at a speed and constantly changing orientation that keeps it perfectly in sync with the earth, correct?

>>10020434
>you believe
neck yourself
it's a geostat

>>10020434
>satellite is orbiting at a speed and constantly changing orientation
what did he mean by this?

>>10020440
It is a belief.
>it's a geostat
Sure kid, you can believe that.

>>10020452
>>10020452
>It is a belief.
>>it's a geostat
>Sure kid, you can believe that.
"I'm an idiot and I will proudly display it"

>>10020452
Your post didn't even make sense
I just provided fastest workable answer
but now I see I should have just stopped at neck yourself

>>10020450
Earth curves away as you travel above it, therefore you must constantly change orientation with it in order to point at it from the same angle.

>>10020456
You believe geostationary satellite = orbiting with a rotating earth at an exact speed to essentially be stationary.

>>10020125
>atheist
>being retarded

yep.

>>10020470
what the fuck?

>>10020470
>>10020473
"I don't understand how basic Newtonian gravity works"

>>10020473
you don't even know that speed
you don't even know how far
I bet you're the same fucktard who >>10020470
doesn't get why planes don't have to point their noses down to not fly off
I want you dead
I literally want all of you fucking wiped out
you are a menace

>>10020489
What's not to get?

>>10020494
>If I mention Newtonian gravity that means I'm correct
Forgetting the fact Newtonian gravity is wrong, what is it that I don't understand?

>>10020497
>I want you dead
>I literally want all of you fucking wiped out
>you are a menace
What's wrong bitch? You sound very secure in your beliefs...

>>10020500
>What's not to get?
you utter failure to comprehend elematary school level concepts
>what is it that I don't understand?
reality

>>10020507
Still waiting for an actual refutation. Try again.

>>10020511
you disqualified Newton
from this point onward, I can literally just make shit up and it will have the same merit as your posts
do you wish to continue?

>>10020519
>you disqualified Newton
Einstein did that.

>>10020125
Retards who know nothing about photography take pictures out of context or at weird angles to convince retards with no knowledge of geography that the Earth is flat.

>>10020552
So you're actually a brainlet

>>10020577
Brother
>Study art and photography in college
>Flerfer makes a claim about perspective
>"THAT'S NOT HOW PERSPECTIVE WORKS"
>Flerfer makes a claim about cameras
>"THAT'S NOT HOW CAMERAS WORK"
Their scam isn't limited to enraging STEM people.

>>10020580
I'm telling you straight facts.

The flat earthers are out enough force on /sci/ huh, how long has that been a thing?

>>10020586
Since you're an expert, how does perspective work?

>>10020593
Almost never how flerfers say it does.

>>10020592
Not sure but globalists get BTFO every time.

>>10020598
You've already made that claim. Can you explain how perspective actually works?

>>10020125
Fisheye makes shit like that look ginormous.

>>10020607

>>10020470
>constantly change orientation
Yes satellites are almost always rotating, if they didn't they would be taking pictures of not earth most of the time. Funny thing about space is you don't need to do anything special to keep spinning forever.

>>10020614
>Yes satellites are almost always rotating

>>10020607
>>10020608
Is this fish eye?

>>10020614
>Funny thing about space is you don't need to do anything special to keep spinning forever.
Are you saying they're tidally locked?

>>10020623
Earth rotates, sun rotates moon rotates satellites rotate.

>>10020627
No, way too small to be tidally locked.

But once they are spinning at the right speed not much further adjustment is needed.

>>10020634
Sounds like you've sent satellites up to orbit before.

>>10020631
I'm too retarded to comprehend fucking tangential velocity and inward acceleration.

>>10020624
There's 0.0145 degrees of arc per mile on Earth's surface an the storm is about 500 miles wide. With that you can calculate what the arc should be in the image and adjust it as needed to fit the math. Then just figure out the arc of difference from that to that of the camera lens to find the focal length of the lens and know if it is wide angle or fish eye.

>>10020631
Almost.
Earth rotates.
Sun rotates differentially.
Satellites rotate, but at different speeds dependent upon their mission. Weather satellites in geosynchronous orbit rotate at a rate equal to their orbit and not coincidentally, the Earth's rotation.

This guy's an unhelpful pretentious asshole.
>>10020649

>>10020634
>>10020682
Oh - yes, Moon rotates at a rate equal to its orbital period, so we see only the same side facing us, with some small variation from its varying orbital speed due to the ellipticity of its orbit. And yes, that's a tidal lock.

>>10020649
Embarrassing

>>10020660
Nice dodge. Is the camera fish eye or not?

>>10020689

>>10020708
Wow! That's really.... Stupid.

>>10020703
It is very wide angle and may be fisheye. Keep in mind that knowing the focal length can tell you which to a point. like if it is 6mm it is certainly fisheye, but 15mm may or may not be.

>>10020708


A very sensitive device would be required to measure the minuscule change in the water depth along the glass walls, because the differences in the strength of the gravitational field between each side of the glass are essentially zero. Because of this the force exerted on the glass is the same, but due to the small volume of water in a glass as opposed to an ocean it would be very hard to measure any change. However, the difference in the strength of the gravitational field between the side of the Earth closest to the Moon and furthest to the Moon is enough to pull water more towards the side close to the Moon.

It's also worth nothing that the surface tension, at these small sizes, will have a much more significant effect than tidal forces, further hindering the measurements.

>>10020714
Great argument.

>>10020332
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

>>10020717
>It is very wide angle
And what tells you this?

>>10020708
Mass of all water on Earth + mass of moon = equals large mass [eqn]\propto[/eqn] large gravitational attraction
and vice versa

>>10020722
There's no arguing something that stupid, sorry.
And if you think that meme has any value, you're equally stupid.

>>10020721
>>10020732

Moon affects water only? What about the atmosphere, which is also a liquid? What about grass, soil, sand, oil?

Why are flat earthers still confused by cameras?

>>10020743
M-MUH CGI!

>>10020739
>Moon affects water only?
No, but it's the most tangible to our senses. The ocean moves a lot, and we can easily see the effects.

>What about the atmosphere, which is also a liquid?
Well firstoff, its a gas. Semantics, I know, but it makes a difference. But yes, the atmosphere is also affected. But we have no biological means to perceive the changes. So we don't notice it.

>What about grass, soil, sand, oil?
Locally we don't see it. But the Earth as a whole (and the Moon) do flex. Individual grains or field will not move. Flexing is actually a source of internal heat (from friction) on some moons of other planets, too. Look up "Tidal heating."

>>10020787
So in other words that's just how it happens? Other things are affected but we just can't notice them. Considering the amount of water that the moon supposedly shifts by itself it's a miracle than nothing else is visibly affected.

>>10020826
>Considering the amount of water that the moon supposedly shifts by itself it's a miracle than nothing else is visibly affected.

That sounds disingenuous. Have you thought of how you would observe the effect of tides on a basically invisible atmosphere and no landmarks by which to compare? Or the tiny vertical movement of land drawn across a vast and varied landscape?
You're talking through your hat here.

>>10020845
Not talking about the tides, I'm talking about the gravitational pull of the moon. If gravity is simply mass attracting mass, then all mass should be affected by the moon, but only the oceans are visibly affected. It's contradictory.

>>10020895
Consider the physical properties of a whole fucking bunch of water compared to the physical properties of much smaller concentrations of everything else.
If we could have free flying labs throughout the atmosphere we'd probably measure changes in it as well but there would be no visible object to compare air concentration against up there.

>>10020895
>Not talking about the tides, I'm talking about the gravitational pull of the moon.
Ummm... they're one and the same. The Moon's (and Sun's) gravity is causing the tides.
And I said, all mass is.
So clearly you're not listening, and we're all wasting our time with an obstinate idiot.

>>10020689
Man-made satellites aren't tidal locked. They are made to rotate at a speed that keeps them tangent to the earth.

>>10021012
Did some fool say artificial satellites were tidally locked? I missed that.

Human eye is approximately 50mm lense for detail view, when translated to the form of a camera. There is no true exact because unlike cameras which have a flat sensor the sensory surface of the eye is curved which allows for a much wider view angle with a small lens.

>>10020714
>Wow! That's really.... Stupid.
I'm used to see retarded things in /sci/, but I agree, this is one of the worst I've ever seen....

>>10020708
The gravitational force between the moon and another object depends on the mass of the second object... What a madness... I know that is a concept very abstract for you, but try to grasp it.

>>10020895
>Not talking about the tides
Tides are caused usually by the gravity of the moon, but they are exceptions, and those exceptions are relevant here.

>then all mass should be affected by the moon
And thery are.

>>10020739
>What about the atmosphere, which is also a liquid?
As >>10020787 said, it is a gas, and that is important. There are tides in the atmosphere, but they are mostly solar, and not due to the gravity of the sun, but the heat radiation of the Sun (the cycle heated-non heated. Those have been detected even in Mars, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL045382)), the lunar effect is smaller but still detectable (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL060818).).

>What about grass, soil, sand, oil?
That's the difference between a rigid body and a fluid. Earth tides have also been detected (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01449116).).

>>10020743
Yea its like the moon is like so small that you just see blackness after 100 meters on a fucking big ball

>>10021440
yeah, did you know that there was a lens setup that makes objects further out appear larger than those in front of them?
I mean, life is scary, man...

>>10020588
Einstein did not disqualify Newton, he augmented him. For low speeds, the equations have virtually identical values.
Just like Earth being a sphere is usually perfectly correct, even though it's actually a bit squished and has bumps.

>>10020434
>just to confirm
>you believe
>the earth is rotating
>the sun is stationery
>satellite is constantly changing orientation
Are u ok, retard?

>>10020391
It's a shame it isn't a complete loop, someone got bored halfway trough?

>>10021488
>tfw Hallmark has a monopoly over the sun

>>10020125

god i hate /pol/turds

>>10020125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJPc8aS6QAA

>>10021499
that straight from the site converted to webm
I really don't know why do they post such shitty snippets instead of at least 12 hour sequences

>>10020708
It doesn't have to overcome anything to move in an orbit

>>10020315
>>10020315
I live on Cape Cod (Cotuit)....This photo is great, thank you!

>>10020125
"Maps aren't the territory".

>>10020511
I love this picture. Brainlet flatard trying to badly argue real science by political cartoon metods

>>10020125
>>10020161
You would need to be infinitely far away from earth to see an entire hemisphere.
From the height of the ISS, only 3% of the Earth's surface is visible (not 50%).
You can do the math yourself.
I used the radius of earth (4000 mi) and the ISS height (250 mi).

>>10023527
>I used the radius of earth (4000 mi) and the ISS height (250 mi).
>You would need to be infinitely far away

Some satellites use a gravity gradient to keep themselves pointed down. Others, like early weather sats, avoid the problem entirely by constantly spinning and only capturing one line of pixels of an image of the earth with each rotation.

>>10023540
>>You would need to be infinitely far away
That is correct, you need to be infinitely far away to see an entire hemisphere

>>10020904
If I have a cup of sand, where is its center of mass?

>>10021279
>the mass of the second object
Therefore oceans and other bodies of water are the only things that have enough mass to be affected by the moon's gravitational pull, correct?

>>10023564
~15,000km is a tad short for infinity

>>10023577
describe the shape of the cup, so we can picture its distribution

>>10023580
>only things that have enough mass to be affected
*noticeably

>>10023584
Are you retarded? You can't see an entire hemisphere no matter how high up you go

>>10023588
Is it the center of the ocean's mass that is attracted to the moon's gravitational pull?

>>10023603
no

>>10023607
but dat how gravit work

>>10023610
ocean is not an object

>>10023614
What is the moon's gravity actually affecting then?

>>10023621
Gravity bends space

>>10023614
ocean is made of many small objects

>>10023622
So tides are actually moving due to bent spacetime?

>>10023621
listen, we seem to have a major case of miscommunication here
it doesn't matter how fucking big or massive ocean is
all water in it, as well as everything else on the planet is being pulled towards the moon, constantly, the water is just easiest to notice without instruments, because of the tides that give you some visual clue on what the fuck is happening
the ground itself is pulled as well
the planet has fucking bulge around the equator
if you deleted the moon, the oceans would withdraw towards the fucking poles and there would be a huge streak of dry land between cancer and capricorn tropics

>>10023623
Isn't everything?

>>10023632
Yes

>>10023633
>all water in it, as well as everything else on the planet is being pulled towards the moon, constantly, the water is just easiest to notice without instruments, because of the tides that give you some visual clue on what the fuck is happening
>the ground itself is pulled as well
So why don't deserts show movement?

>the planet has fucking bulge around the equator
Prove it.

>>10023634
no?

people that believe flat earth never cease to amaze me with their stupidity

>>10023637
Is that really true or just a delusion?

>>10023646
if that's how you want to imagine gravity then yes

>>10023645
People who believe they're on a spinning ball never cease to amaze me with their nonsensical metaphysical beliefs.

>>10023639
>So why don't deserts show movement?
kill yourself

>>10023646
It's the best model we have for gravity. Unless you have a better one?

>>10023649
That's pretty schizo.

>>10023652
Didn't think you could answer.

>>10023654
Electromagnetism.

>>10023663
You misunderstand electromagnetism

>>10023668
Infinite plane + electromagnetism = truth

>>10023661
desert sand moves you fucking mongol

>>10023681
Can you eloborate?

>>10023684
Due to the moon you utter imbecile?

>>10023687
Later, I am going out no. Stars are intrinsically linked to the magnetic field of the earth which extends infinitely.

Why the fuck are you guys still responding to flat earthers. You should have learned by now it is like talking to a wall.

Is the universe flat?

>>10024094
most likely

>>10024102
The earth is an infinite plane, so is the universe, they are one and the same. Checkmate globalists.

>>10020208
fukken saved

>>10024105
>flat universe
>plane
inigomontoya.png