/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10079195
It's called air.

>>10079195
what's the evolutionary advantage for the person making this post?

>>10079238
none, he's a dead end
just as planned

>>10079234
It's like, too much air, man. It's too thick to see through, yeah?

>>10080137
Hush the mocking tone globelet, it is a perfectly reasonable explanation you cretinous swine.

>>10080137
Actually perfectly reasonable. The reason the sky is blue is because light is being scattered. You think you'd be able to see hundreds of kilometers just fine with all that scattering going on?

The problem is that we lose ability to see things within ranges that we should still be able to see things, and that's due to the curvature of the Earth.
So this argument is bad because it is built on mistaken understandings of reality.

>>10080770
>The problem is that we lose ability to see things within ranges that we should still be able to see things,
Such as?

>>10080783
Everything.

>>10081013
Specifics please globefag.

>>10081047
Everything.

>>10081081
Don't be scared globefag, give an example.

>>10080770
>You think you'd be able to see hundreds of kilometers just fine with all that scattering going on?
How far are the sun, moon, and stars?

>>10081120
According to flatters i mean

>>10081115
Not him, but literally go to any port and look through binoculars at the ships as they leave and you’ll see that they sink into the horizon, rather than fading away as it would if the air was blocking your sight.

>>10081121
Few thousand miles away. They don't travel through the densest air however.

>>10081133
How does perspective affect ships going off into the distance?

>>10080770
Scattering is a good argument, just not this way. Molecular Rayleigh scattering is highly wavelength dependent and will not be the reason why you couldn't see the statue of liberty from the Lisbon coast. Aerosols (dust, sea salt, soot, ..) and water vapour, however can create a strong enough haze over these distances to create trouble - both scattering and aborption (!) of light rays.

On a dry and clear day, I don't see why you couldn't do it, though. Especially with stationary objects, you could just try for a long exposure.

>>10081151
>On a dry and clear day, I don't see why you couldn't do it, though.
Yeah, but you would need a dry, clear day over hundreds of kilometers.

>>10081148
They'll get smaller.

>>10081159
>They'll get smaller
Smaller, therefore lower, therefore its light is in denser and denser air as it gets further away, correct?

>>10081159
>Yeah, but you would need a dry, clear day over hundreds of kilometers.

Obviously not very common. You'd also have to deal with flimmering, as air pockets with different temperatures will be floating through your line of sight, turning everything into a wobbly mess.

But you could easily deal with that using common tools from astrophotography, stack frames, keep taking pictures over many days etc..

>>10081169
>Smaller, therefore lower
Lol, what fucking planet do you live on?

Cease this faggotry, flattards

>>10081148
Perspective makes them get smaller, but doesn’t account for the sinking. When I say they sink, you lose sight of the bottom portion whilst still being able to see the top, which is due to the curvature of the ocean blocking your view of the bottom of it.

>>10081171
What happens to a plane that flies over your head, does it get lower as it flies away you monumental brainlet?

>>10081184
What happens to the car driving away from you, does it get lower as it drives away you monumental brainlet?

>>10081181
Cease your mom, globeshit.

>>10081182
It's due to the densest part of the air being at the bottom which covers the bottom of the boat first, along with the rest of it as it gets further and smaller.

>>10081187
Yes it does get lower you incessant brainlet

>>10081193
Then there should be an intermediate state where the bottom of the boat is merely hazier than the top, no?

>>10081196
Clearly you have never been outside.

>>10081198
Watch and learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWsuFLdgBs

>>10081202
Projection

>>10081208
No, unfortunately I do actually go outside almost everyday, which is why I have a grasp on how reality works.

As you are taller than the car (or at least most portions of the car) your apparent horizon is above the car, thus as it moves away from you it'll rise to converge on the apparent horizon.

So what is the flat earth explenation that I can look further from the coast on a higher building?

>>10081203
So, the light from the boat bends towards the ground, right? What would happen if I went up? Would I be able to see the boat again?

>>10081220
No explanation because flattards can't think that far

>>10081219
>I do actually go outside almost everyday
False.
>your apparent horizon is above the car, thus as it moves away from you it'll rise to converge on the apparent horizon.
No brainlet, as the car gets further away, it gets smaller towards the horizon which is below it, there gets lower to the observer.

>>10081220
Because the air is less dense.

Flat earth supporters, please draw a picture that shows how the light coming from an object on the horizon bends. If you can't even do that, your theory ist busted

>>10081251
So 20m makes such a massive difference?

How can we see stars then ?

>>10081223
Yes you would be able to see the boat again because the higher you go, the less dense the air, so the farther you can see.

>>10081261
Give me a picture with the light rays

>>10081259
Stars are visible because you look up to see them, where the air is less dense. They are easily seen due to being lights in darkness, and are still affected by the air which contributes to the twinkling effect. Light pollution and fog etc still affects their visibility.

>>10081272
Am at work, will have to wait.

>>10081274
If being on the ground leads to the fact that you can look less than 5km far than the stars would be way past the max visible range

>>10081274
How come we can see stars on the horizon? Their light has to go much farther through the atmosphere

>>10081193
>It's due to the densest part of the air being at the bottom which covers the bottom of the boat first
You can't make this shit up.

>>10081193
That doesn't make sense for two (2) reasons:
1. What "covers" (occludes) the bottom of the boat is water, not air.
2. The change in air density due to height at these scales is absolutely negligible.

>>10081296
Stars ain't travelling through as much air

>>10081304
They get fainter until they disappear

>>10081193
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula
>The pressure drops approximately by 11.3 Pa per meter in first 1000 meters above sea level.

Even if the boat was 30 meters tall that's a density difference of 339 pascals (or 0.00334567 atm). As >>10081311 said that's completely negligible.

>>10081308
>brainlet thinks ships disappear behind curvature and thinks that makes sense

>>10081322
How do you explain polar day and polar night? Why doesn't the sun disappear/appear when there aren't any changes in air pressure

>>10081323
>>10081329
I will answer in an hour

>Model of Flat Earth:

>coin/disk shaped
>edges are frozen ice
>underside is lava, and in complete darkness
>topside is temperate region, despite having a never ending nuclear reactor magically floating just above it
>nuclear reactor NEVER runs out of fuel despite being relatively small
>lava from the underside can never melt the ice on the edges of the world, just because
>Australia and South America are the 2 land masses most distance apart, but take the same time to travel to as NY to London

PhD confirms flat earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaanEaMDIx0&feature=youtu.be

>>10081323
Yeah but we're talking directly above the sea surface, with water that is constantly evaporating.

>>10081329
The sun gets brighter and dimmer during a polar day with 24 hour sunlight. The north pole has true 24 hour daylight because the sun is much closer and makes a tight circle around it.

The south pole doesn't have true 24 hour daylight, it has 24 hour sunlight which is different. The sun is visible just above the horizon but the sky is dark, not blue like it would be at the north pole.

The reason you can see the sun for 24 hours in Antarctica is because Antarctica is the "continent" with the highest elevation in the world. This, combined with the extremely clear, cold, lacking in density air, means the sun's light can travel much further, and is therefore still visible when far away. This is not the case with warmer climates.

>>10081343
>coin/disk shaped
No, infinite plane.
>edges are frozen ice
Not really edges, but they keep the water contained.
>never ending nuclear reactor magically floating just above it
>nuclear reactor NEVER runs out of fuel despite being relatively small
You're trying to use the globe model's concept of the sun in a flat model. Fail.
>lava from the underside can never melt the ice on the edges of the world, just because
There is no underside on an infinite plane.
>>Australia and South America are the 2 land masses most distance apart, but take the same time to travel to as NY to London
English please.

>>10081454
I'm sure you can back that up with actual measurements

>>10081492

>>10081504
>trusting fake science

>>10081523
>says the globeshit

I'm still waiting for them light rays, not this hand-wavy shit

>>10081547

>>10081573
What's in between those two rays? Where's the zone where no rays at all hit the observer?

>>10081573
>>10081585
Also, I need that for the entire flat earth map. Remember that it has to accurately predict shadow lenghts, equinoxes, polar nights, star positions, etc.

>>10081585
There is air between the "rays". As the ship gets further away, its light must "pass" through much more atmosphere to get to observer 1, with the bottom of the ship "passing" through the most atmosphere, hence why it disappears bottom up.

>>10081593
Just make the earth stationary, with a local sun and stars moving above. The stars are the hardest part of the puzzle, the dome model fails miserably at them.

I think there could be multiple "sets" of "southern" stars, the "stars" being electromagnetic in nature, creating the paths for the sun and moon (and planets) to follow throughout the year.

>>10081645

>>10081645
>>10081647
That doesn't predict anything. I want to see calculations

>>10081651
See Tycho Brahe.

>>10081661
So you don't have anything. Thanks

>>10081671
>Muh calculations
Pathetic.

>>10081683
If your model can't predict anything it's worthless

>>10081689
It's really not hard to predict the movements of the celestial lights when they've had a set pattern for thousands of years.

There is no measurable curvature in physical reality, that means the globe model is wrong, it matters not one iota if it can "predict" things, it is fundamentally wrong regardless.

>>10081700
Well, the flat earth models make false predictions or none at all, so they're wrong by default.

>>10081706
That doesn't stop the earth being a plane. The heliocentric model can't get away from it either, you have a flat universe, with flat galaxies and flat orbital planes.

All you have is a mathematical model that makes the orbits supposedly simpler. You don't have any empirical proof of curvature, nor empirical proof of a center of the earth. It is not a scientific model.

>>10081726
>That doesn't stop the earth being a plane
Yes it does. Also where are the flat planets? Oh, right. They don't exist

>>10081726
>You don't have any empirical proof of curvature, nor empirical proof of a center of the earth
>what are seismic waves

>>10081758
>Yes it does.
Not in physical reality. Your entire globe model is based upon the observation of shadows, rather than actually empirically measuring the physicality of the earth. All measurements show the earth is a flat plane, game over.
>Also where are the flat planets? Oh, right. They don't exist
The earth isn't a "planet", it is a plane. Looking at lights in the sky does not mean you are standing on something with the same shape. With that logic the earth might as well be the shape of a cloud.

>>10081772
What about them?

10081780
>game over
Yes, for you. You're ignoring everything that contradicts your delusion. Bye.

>>10081787
>You're ignoring everything that contradicts your delusion
And you are not, clearly...

>>10081248
Wow, it's like you're completely wrong.

>>10081645
How many times do I have to tell you, you're not adding enough south pole stars.