/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10138204

>>10138233
That the best you've got brainlet?

>>10138233
>Taking the bait

>>10138237
It's not bait, keep your sage rage to yourself.

Howdy guys!

Fun science fact: The sun is not only about 400 times the diameter of the moon, but also about 400 times further away, so it appears the same size as the moon in the sky. Yes kids, by pure chance! And not only this, but the moon's orbit slots perfectly over the sun during an eclipse, it's extremely precise, and occurs year after year.

Yes that's right children, the moon's orbit which allows for this just happens to be the right orbit by chance! And we just happen to live in a time when it's possible to see it, by chance!

Real science is awesome!

>>10138204
>Imagine being so retarded that you don't understand perspective.

>>10138460
Not the point brainlet. It's the sheer amount of assumptions/coincidences your model has to resort to, in order to have the solar eclipses we observe.

It's much more logical to view them as being a similar size and distance.

>>10138483
>Imagine being so retarded that you think perspective isn't a relevant point.

>>10138421
>Imagine being so retarded that you think an argument from incredulity is convincing to anyone except other retards.

>>10138501
Perspective just adds even more coincidence to your model brainlet, it doesn't make it any more logical.

>>10138510
>what is Occam's Razor

If they were similar in size and distance they would collide with each other rather than eclipsing.

>>10138204
>despite eclipsing each other perfectly year after year
Why would tell such a bold faced lie? Annular eclipses are a thing.

>>10138421
>Yes that's right children, the moon's orbit which allows for this just happens to be the right orbit by chance! And we just happen to live in a time when it's possible to see it, by chance!
Considering the rate that the moon is moving away fom us and the fact it only sometimes perfectly aligns with the size of the Sun we live in a millions of years long period where total eclipses can occur.
This means dinosaurs could have also asked why it was such coincidence. It also means that from what we know of how long it takes for large, intelligent animals to evolve it's a statistical probability that intelligent life would have evolved on Earth during the period wherr total eclipses occur.

Yes, logic is awesome.

>>10138536
Something that rules out the supernatural by default.

>eclipsing each other perfectly year after year
but that's wrong you fucking retard
the moon passes the sun in the sky 13 times a year (every new moon) but total solar eclipses happen less than once a year due to fluctuations in the relative distance and timing of the moon and sun.

and like >>10138640 said, annular eclipses happen, which contraindicates the flathead notion of a nearby sun and moon.

>>10138421
>it's extremely precise, and occurs year after year.
It's a rare coincididence, that's why its considered an omen, it does not happen very often

>>10138602
They are electromagnetic, not gravitational.

>>10138640
>>10139028
It's still perfect YOU BRAINLETS!!

The moon is hollow and is a product of a higher civilisation. Consciousness is only 3D, while 4D beings walk among us.

>>10138652
What's the statistical probability of total solar eclipses occurring at all? That's the point.

>>10138658
The sun and moon appear the same size and similar distance away from earth.

>This is because they are a similar size and distance away from the earth.
Occam's razor gives a thumbs up.

>They are actually quite different in their size and distance, it's just coincidentally the sun is 400 times bigger in diameter and 400 times the distance of the moon.
Occam razor says you're a faggot.

>>10140326
How is it "perfect" if they aren't the same apparent size?

>>10140398
It is centred perfectly.

>>10140333
That depends on whether you want the probability of it happening in the universe or it happening to a specific planet. If someone wins the lottery do you conclude they cheated?

>>10140356
lmao it is easily proven by observed parallax and trigonometry that the Moon is much, much closer to earth than the sun.
What are you doing on /sci/ brainlet?

>>10140400
In that particular spot it is but it wouldn't if the observer was standing on some other spot on Earth.

>>10140402
What's the probability of it happening on a planet with life?

>>10140356
>applying Occam's razor without taking into account all relevant data, which show that the first answer is not possible

>>10140407
Prove it without making any assumptions to the distance or size of the celestial bodies in your calculation.

>>10140400
>wait for the eclipse to be centered perfectly
>ignore all the times it wasn't
>aha, a coincidence!
You are a special kind of stupid.

>>10140419
Just the fact it can be centred perfectly at all is incredibly unlikely, let alone year after year.

>>10140418
Could be a pre-requisite for intelligent space-faring life.

>>10140420
>without taking into account all relevant data
Like?

>>10140418
1.

Now answer my question, do you conclude that lottery winners cheated?

>>10140425
>wait for the eclipse to be centered perfectly
The fact it can be centred perfectly is the point you monumental slob.

>>10140430
All astronomical observations, which are only explained by the theories of relativity.

So here's something that no this day no flat earther could answer. Maybe OP or the other retard in this thread could provide some insight.

The very model of the flat earth ignores a natural phenomenon anyone can observe. I'll cook up an MS paint model of it in a sec.

>>10140434
It can be centered perfectly because all objects in the solar system are rotating in the same plane. Thus their relative alignment is only a matter of time. Dumb fuck. Inevitable events are not mysterious coincidences.

>>10140437
Rotating galaxies?

>>10140445
We'll see brainlet

>>10140449
What about them?

>>10140423
Parallax you inbred nigger.
http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html

>>10140447
Imbecile, doesn't the moon move up and down along its orbital path? That's forgetting the axial tilt of the earth in combination.

>>10140459
That's just the moon you brat

>>10140445
In the above gif, the sun is once a day directly over about the middle of australia, meaning that at that time, it's 12:00 there. If you use your spatial reasoning skills, you can imagine how the shadows in Brisbane and Perth (Both about on the same height as the sun is in your model) should look like, again, according to your model.
I've illustrated this in MS paint so even your absolute brainlet can grasp it.

>>10138204
>eclipsing each other perfectly
L0Lno fgt pls

>>10138421
>the moon's orbit slots perfectly over the sun during an eclipse, it's extremely precise
L0Lno fgt pls

>>10140472
As you will notice, the shadows thrown by the buildings in Brisbane and Perth should point into opposite directions according to your model. The simple and hard truth is that they do not. This is a fact that you can check for yourself whenever it is 12:00 in australia. Just look at webcams from these two cities and see for yourself.

>>10140470
Moon:
>http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html
Sun:
>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate
Can your brainlet mind put the two pieces of info together for comparson?

>>10138204
OUTER SPACE IS COMPUTER ANIMATION PROOF. ALL THE PEASANTS ARE SLEEPING AND BELIEIVING TV IS REAL, BUT ITS ALL JUST DEPICTIONS BY ARTISTS AND BRAINIACS

>>10140452
I'm waiting, lad
>>10140445
>>10140472
>>10140482

>>10140461
That's just deviation around the same plane you goddamn idiot. The orbital tilt only affects who can see it on Earth not whether it will be seen. Did your puny little mind explode when you realized a stopped clock is correct twice a day?

>>10140482
Prove it brainlet, show the pictures.

>>10140484
>uses Venus
That's what I thought brainlet, they have to assume the size and distance of something else.

>>10140498
Fine. First thing I'll do when it's 12 o clock in aussie land

>>10140493
>That's just deviation around the same plane you goddamn idiot.
That's point you utter imbecile. The deviation just so happens to coincide perfectly with a total solar eclipse.

>>10138421
Proof of God

>>10140501
Sure kid

>>10138204
>The absolute state of /sci/ bait

>>10138204
>it's blatantly obvious
Ain't obvious to me

>>10140504
Wow you're dumb. The deviation almost never coincides with a total solar eclipse. You have to wait for it to happen. Just like you have to wait for a stopped clock to tell the correct time.

>>10140516
Not bait saddo

>>10140519
>Ain't obvious to me
That's because you have brainletism.

>>10140538
Total solar eclipses happen about once a year, when the moon's deviation could make total eclipses impossible. Clocks are built to do one thing, the moon's deviation is based on chance.

>>10140562
It's not based on chance, it's based on a regular orbital pattern determined by the distribution of masses at and after it's formation. It's virtually assured that this orbit however it's formed will align with the Sun as seen from earth at some point since everything is orbiting around the same plane. Small deviations from that plane are irrelevant since it has to pass through it, not to mention that the different viewing locations on the earth allow for many chances to find perfect alignment.

>>10140562
>The place where a clock stops is based on chance, therefore the clock being correct twice a day is surprising.

OP is a faggot

>>10140576
>determined by the distribution of masses at and after it's formation
Which is chance brainlet.
>Small deviations from that plane are irrelevant since it has to pass through it, not to mention that the different viewing locations on the earth allow for many chances to find perfect alignment.
No it doesn't brainlet, far too many variables involved that makes it much less likely for perfect alignment than not.

>>10140583
>comparing a clock built by man, to a moon and its orbit created by a randomness

>>10140595
No, u.

>>10140617
Yes, u

>>10140500
>too retarded to look up how size and distance to Venus was determined.
Again, brainlet, it's parallax. Learn to use a search engine.

>>10140643
^
|
|
|
Believes the sun is the same distance as the moon

>>10140653
The size of Venus/the sun is assumed brainlet.

>>10140658
Very similar distance you cretin.

>>10140513
Here you go, you spastic, cum gargling, glue sniffing retard. I decided to use the time I have left as a neet to rape your shitty theory once and for all.
I decided to use webcams from San Francisco and Kansas City, because they both have much clearer shadows than the australian ones.
In pic related, it's around 12:00 in San Francisco, while it's 13:00 in Kansas City, due to it being in a different time zone.
Now, note where the shadows point towards, and then take a long hard look at the flat earth model in>>10140445.

>>10140674
Now, take a look at how the shadows would look in your model. If you have an IQ of over 50, you should realize that the observations made irl don't match with the ones predicted by your model. Faggot.

>>10140605
>Which is chance brainlet.
No it's not, retard. These masses are rotating in the same plane not by chance but by simple causality.

>No it doesn't brainlet, far too many variables involved that makes it much less likely for perfect alignment than not.
Perfect alignment doesn't happen more often than not, you utter mongoloid.

At this point you're just agreeing with me but you're too pathetically stupid to realize it.

>>10140614
>Distinction without a difference
That the clock is made by man has no relevance to it correct twice a day, you sniveling troglodyte.

Then again, what proof do you have for your hypothesis, OP?
There's plenty of evidence contradicting you

>>10140674
Oh dear brainlet, couldn't prove your Australia claim so have moved the goal posts to Kansas and San Francisco. The shadows look fine brainlet what are you babbling about?

>>10138204
The moon was drug into orbit to counterbalance the wobble caused by the comet that hit 12k years ago.

The earth's main mountain chain ring circled the planet north to south and it's center of mass was all lined up and spinning comfortably in the plane with the sun. Comet messed it up 30 degrees and caused a wobble that would have torn earth apart as it spun down, much like a coin on a table can accelerate around it's edges as it flattens towards a table.

>>10140697
>No it's not, retard. These masses are rotating in the same plane not by chance but by simple causality.
The mass they have is a product of chance, the mass they orbit is a product of chance, the speed, the inclination, the deviation, etc etc.
>Perfect alignment doesn't happen more often than not, you utter mongoloid.
Partial solar eclipses are also aligned perfectly, like pic related, you abhorrent pissant.

>>10140703
>just doesn't get it

>>10140723
>The mass they have is a product of chance, the mass they orbit is a product of chance, the speed, the inclination, the deviation, etc etc.
All irrelevant, all that matters is whether the orbital paths cross. Because all orbits are aligned with the same plane they are virtually guaranteed to cross. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>Partial solar eclipses are also aligned perfectly, like pic related, you abhorrent pissant.
LOL aligned with what? I hope you're trolling and not mentally ill.

>>10140732
>just doesn't have an argument
Well thread's over, OP admits defeat.

>>10140710
>Then again, what proof do you have for your hypothesis, OP?
Not about proof, it's Occam's razor.

>>10140743
>All irrelevant, all that matters is whether the orbital paths cross. Because all orbits are aligned with the same plane they are virtually guaranteed to cross. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
It's a tilted orbit numbnuts. Learn your own model. Every eclipse, be it partial or not, is aligned perfectly.
>LOL aligned with what? I hope you're trolling and not mentally ill.
The moon and sun are aligned perfectly in a partial eclipse because the areas that are overlapped are overlapped without any error, they slot together in harmony, not disharmony, ya dig?

>>10140758
It's about your retarded misapplication of Occam's razor since you ignore literally all existent data.

Why do you guys bother humoring flat earthers who've been huffing paint thinner for 6 years, its a lost cause. The be-all-end-all is just running your own Cavendish experiment

>>10140785
>all existent data
Just more assumptions you dosser

isn't /sci/ some of the smartest people on 4chan? even /b/ wouldn't fall for such low effort bait. I doubt even reddit would fall for it.
I hope you guys are just so bored you decided to reply for fun

>>10140789
>Cavendish experiment

>>10140797
>t. NASA

>>10140430
Observations, and the fact that people went to the moon and the sun - surprise! - wasn't there and was still far away

>>10140799
Cavendish experimental results are easily expanded to verifying the curvature of the earth and the distance of the sun but a probable drop out such as yourself wouldnt be able to verify it, good luck sweetie

>>10140797
>I hope you guys are just so bored you decided to reply for fun
Yeah, pretty much my case
Got nothing to do for 2 hours so I decided to fuck around

>>10140776
>It's a tilted orbit numbnuts. Learn your own model. Every eclipse, be it partial or not, is aligned perfectly.
I'll make this very simple for you: does the moon's orbit cross the ecliptic plan, yes or no?

>Every eclipse, be it partial or not, is aligned perfectly.
Aligned with what perfectly?

>The moon and sun are aligned perfectly in a partial eclipse because the areas that are overlapped are overlapped without any error, they slot together in harmony, not disharmony, ya dig?
This is meaningless. What would it look like for them to overlap "with error?"

Here's an experiment you can do at home: cut out two circles of paper and overlap them in whichever way you want. I bet you'll discover that they always "align perfectly" because you're a fucking retard who doesn't understand basic geometry. Then go back to elementary school and try to graduate this time.

>>10140792
>data are assumptions
You can't explain shit and you know it.

>>10140804
>people went to the moon
Erm, no sir.

>>10140806
>thinks Newtonian gravity is real

>>10140792
>implying data are assumptions

>>10140811
>I'll make this very simple for you: does the moon's orbit cross the ecliptic plan, yes or no?
In your retard model.
>This is meaningless. What would it look like for them to overlap "with error?"
Because the moon enters and exits at the exact same overlapping angle, so the before and after become picture perfect opposites, you complete mong.

>>10140859
Wrong pic.

>>10140819
It's not true empirical data, bitch

>>10138421
>400 times the diameter of the moon, but also about 400 times
nope.
> it's extremely precise
nope.

>>10140854
>what is true empirical data

>>10140868
Enlighten us brainiac

>>10140877
Use a search engine, retard.

>>10140879
That's what I thought retardo.

>>10140884
It is really easy to find information.

>>10140859
>In your retard model.
Then you have no point. The orbit HAS to at some point align the moon with the sun regardless of tilt because it crosses the ecliptic plane.

>Because the moon enters and exits at the exact same overlapping angle, so the before and after become picture perfect opposites, you complete mong.
You didn't do your homework assignment. If you had you would see this is always true when two discs pass each other. I'm sorry but you failed and you'll have to go through the third grade yet again.

>>10140888
Post it.

>>10140865
It is, you lose.

>>10140897
You. Start by telling me why the two green statements in this post >>10140868 are not true.

>>10140872
>not knowing what assumption means
>not knowing what verification is
At least you tried

>>10140896
>the ecliptic plane.
And there's only one of them... how convenient.
>If you had you would see this is always true when two discs pass each other
Not with a moon on a tilted orbit, being observed on a rotating, spherical earth on an axis, and an elliptical orbit around the sun.

>>10140897
I know you won’t bother doing this.
>Sun
Diameter: about 1,390,000 km.
Distance from earth: Average 149,597,870,700 km.
Distance changes as we revolve around it, which is one problem with your argument by the way.
>Moon
Diameter: 3,474 km.
Distance from earth: Average 384,402 km.

You told us the sun is 400 times larger and further away than the moon. But the moon’s average distance multiplied by 400 is just 153,760,800. So you’re off by only 149,444,109,900 kilometers. Flat wrong - get it? :^)
But is it 400 times larger? Take the moon’s diameter and multiply by 400. We get: 1,389,600 km. It’s close enough.
My guess is you learned this “fact” from a facebook meme

>>10140356
If they were a similar size and distance away we would expect them to interact more directly. During a total eclipse, for example, they need to align perfectly. If they're equal size then they would also need to be equally distant, but that would pose a problem as they'd then have to directly interact with each other. So now you're going to have to make concessions, the moon is going to have to be smaller and closer, but there's also another problem, annular eclipses where the moon is fully in front of the Sun but doesn't perfectly cover the Sun. So now either the moon has changed size or it is further away, which means it is closer to the Sun. Obviously if they were a similar size and distance away during a total eclipse then an annular eclipse would be a problem.

So, do you have an actual estimate for the sizes and distances that take into account all observations, not just total eclipses, or are you just going to oppose the convention because it's the convention?

>>10140901
Now what, brainlet?

>>10140931
>And there's only one of them... how convenient.
Yes, there is only one plane in which a planet revives around the sun. With every post you reach a new intellectual low.

>Not with a moon on a tilted orbit, being observed on a rotating, spherical earth on an axis, and an elliptical orbit around the sun.
Because...? You're retarded, just stop posting

>>10140899
NO.

>>10140902
>thinks observing celestial lights is true empirical data

>>10140950
You're fucking meming, no one is this retarded

>>10140946
>>10140938
I literally just did this shit homeboi
How do you account for the fact that our distance from the sun changes constantly as we revolve around it?

>>10140946
>someone said it on the internet so it must be true

>>10140943
Extreme changes in size like that make more sense with a local moon/sun, makes much less sense in the globe model.

>>10140957
>can't produce true empirical data for their retard claims

>>10140966
that gif is way off scale though.

>>10140938
>Distance from earth: Average 149,597,870,700 km.
That's three digits higher than it should be. Are you sure you didn't get the distance in meters?

>>10140947
>Yes, there is only one plane in which a planet revives around the sun. With every post you reach a new intellectual low.
How's that possible with spheres dumbo?
>Because...? You're retarded, just stop posting
Sure kid.

>>10140971
>Extreme changes in size like that make more sense with a local moon/sun, makes much less sense in the globe model.
That's a bold claim.
Explain the more logical mechanism then.

>>10140966
The sun makes a smaller circle around the north pole during summer in the northern hemisphere (it's also lower in altitude), and makes wider circles in winter (it's also at a higher altitude).

>>10140988
They move closer and further away depending on the season.

>>10140830
>>>/x/

>>10140999
But that doesn't explain annular eclipses or the changing sizes of the moon at all. They're not linked to seasons.
In fact, the Sun and moon don't change sizes in relation to the seasons at all. There is literally no link with the seasons.

>>10141010
How does the globe model explain it?

>>10140665
You're either trolling or retarded. My guess is both.
The page that explains how the earth-sun distance was determined also links to how the venus-earth distance was determined.
Solar system distances were proven hundreds of years ago, but poor brainlet you still can't figure it out.

>>10141017
It's all assumptions built upon assumptions when you look into it brainlet.

>140 replies
>28 unique IP's
Absolute fucking cancer.

>>10141012
Orbits are not perfect circles.

>>10141026
Some assumptions are more reasonable than others, especially ones that are still waiting to be proven wrong, like parallax methods of measuring distance working over extremely long distances.

You can live your life like Patrick if you want, just don't try to convince others you're right.

>>10140983
>How's that possible with spheres dumbo?
What are you talking about? The only relevance of them being spheres is that they cast circular shadows. Nothing to do with how the orbit.

>Sure kid.
So you just said that with no basis. You're pathetic.

>>10140938

>>10140713
No they fucking don't. They all point roughly towards the north, a phenomenon that can be explained by earth's axial tilt.
In the FE model in >>10140686
or in>>10140445
the sun rays would cause the shadows to point towards the east.

>>10140938
cosmolet. Use miles for obvious reasons. You are off my several orders of magnitude by the way. My guess is you learned this "fact" by wanking.

>>10142003
>Use miles for obvious reasons
Why would anyone use miles?

>>10142032
Someone else will tell you why, I can offer a neat little parallel you can work out for yourself. Why do you think circles sweep 360 degrees or 2π radians in angles?

>>10140877
this isn't even a science issue, it's an issue of you being a complete retard with no goals, motivation, nor any sense of self awareness. On what basis should anyone consider your opinion, the opinion of someone who has neither read any scientific literature on the subject nor taken the time to think about it for more than a second, over the general consensus of 90% of people who have ever lived? Here's your answer though
>get an orange
>get a strawberry
>notice that one is bigger
>hold the strawberry an inch away from your eye
>hold the orange arms length from the strawberry
>can't see the orange anymore
>then call nasa and blow their fucking minds

>>10142059
>Why do you think circles sweep 360 degrees or 2π radians in angles?
Because those are the units everyone uses.

>>10140833
Did you know that there is literally nothing stopping you from performing the experiment yourself to confirm the existence of gravity? That is if you can manage a set of power tools without killing yourself through sheer incompetence...

>>10141989
I'm still waiting for an answer

>>10142516
You're not going to get one

>>10138421
if the moon passes in front of the sun at all there is always a location on earth where it will be centered and "precise" for a moment. Given the moon travels between the sun and the earth and they are all orbiting on the same plane, this is literally unavoidable and a direct result of all of the orbits being on the same or almost the same plane.

The size of the moon and the distances involved are a coincidence though, but there are no "exactly"s involved, it's not some perfect ratio.

>>10138204

If they were very similar in size and distance, they wouldn't eclipse each other, they'd crash into each other.

Grow up and read a science book or look up FACTS online.

>>10144536
>if the moon passes in front of the sun at all there is always a location on earth where it will be centered and "precise" for a moment.
Lol, no. Not all eclipses are total, even ones where the moon is fully in front of the Sun.

>Some naturally occuring thing, out of trillions of possible things, must have a meaning just because... because...

>>10141100
>Orbits are not perfect circles.
That's because the sun and moon move back and forth over the equator line above our stationary earth in one year. Their change in size is much more logical with a local sun and moon.

>>10141129
The parallax you talk about is calculated upon assumptions, not empirical data.

>>10141139
>What are you talking about? The only relevance of them being spheres is that they cast circular shadows. Nothing to do with how the orbit.
How can spheres only have one orbital plane? They are 3D spheres, therefore have theoretically infinitely many possible "orbital planes".

>>10141989
The second webcam image in Kansas you're using here >>10140674 is not facing where your arrow below says it is.

>>10142083
>appeal to majority fallacy
Your orange and strawberry example uses local objects, which supports my position you complete buffoon.

>>10142472
You are observing an effect of an apparatus and immediately concluding it is proof of "gravity", whatever the fuck that is. You can't say the gravity is the attraction between the centres of mass (whatever the fuck that is), because Newtonian gravity has been replaced, so it now has to be an experiment showing mass curving "space-time" (whatever the fuck that is).

I might as well find a big magnet and a small magnet and say the big magnet's mass is curving space-time more than the small magnet's mass, causing the small magnet to be attracted to the big magnet.

"Mass" is meaningless, and ignores the physical make-up of the actual object. The Cavendish experiment uses lead balls, and lead is just as electrically static as cat's fur. Cavendish also worked on electrostatic attraction. The Cavendish experiment is just an old carnival trick like the Foucault pendulum.

>>10144727
>If they were very similar in size and distance, they wouldn't eclipse each other, they'd crash into each other.
If they are a very similar size and distance, then your retard gravity can't be real, or they have extremely low "mass".

>>10138421
keep up the good work anon

>>10141129
you know what they say "when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me" you make yourself look dumb and you convince retards who cant think that we are the idiots
the earth is flat please look into it before you just assume again and be wrong again

>>10145588
Dome model doesn't work, it has to be an infinite plane because that can work with the "stars", and it fits perfectly with mathematical logic.

>>10145611
that not true at all dome can work just fine

>>10145706
"Southern" celestial pole?

>>10145500
that's a [citation needed] from me my man

>>10140434
Any two objects form lines that can be viewed as "perfectly centered", especially when there is little deviation from the ecliptic plane. It's not a surprise at all that there are some spots on Earth that occasionally intersect with such lines.

>>10145765
Look at the road to the left in the webcam pic, then try to match it up with a road in the google map screen shot. It doesn't work.

>>10145784
>ecliptic plane
What does this even mean? What are ecliptic/orbital planes? What are they made of?

>>10144804
any time the moon is between the earth and the sun and the umbra hits the earth, there is a location where a total eclipse is visible.

You're right that when the earth only moves through the moon's penumbra and a total eclipse is not visible on earth.

>>10145764
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=t30-YbayyXE

>>10146460
Nice idea but doesn't work, the constellations are different for a start, and there's no southern pole star to reflect the north pole star.

This doesn't fit the globe or dome model in my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGuTOfCTs98

>>10145475
>How can spheres only have one orbital plane?
Again, what does the shape of the object have to do with how other objects orbit it?

>They are 3D spheres, therefore have theoretically infinitely many possible "orbital planes".
Whether they are spheres or any other shape has nothing to do with it. Infinite possibilities does not mean every possibility is equally likely.

>>10146612
>Again, what does the shape of the object have to do with how other objects orbit it?
You tell me! What creates an "orbital plane"?
>Whether they are spheres or any other shape has nothing to do with it. Infinite possibilities does not mean every possibility is equally likely.
So what creates the damn "orbital plane"? What the fuck is it?

If all Stars are various sizes and distances away then why do they all appear as around the same size twinkling stars in the night sky?

>>10146671
BRRIG BBANGE

>>10138421
Is that you Joe?

>>10138204
Oh gods... another "stupid" thread.
Why on sci? Can't you contain it to /x/ or /b/?

>>10146700
Yes.

>>10140445
The flat earth is covered by a great dome CALLED THE FIRMAMENT. It's not a flat disc, it's a DOME. And underneath the Earth is a great and infinite ocean. And outside the firmament is another great ocean.

>>10146671
>If all Stars are various sizes and distances away then why do they all appear as around the same size twinkling stars in the night sky?
Nigger, have you ever looked at the night sky?

>>10146652
>You tell me! What creates an "orbital plane"?
Gravity and momentum. Now answer my question.

>>10145905
No. Learn some more about eclipses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

>>10146460
I particularly like this explanation because at around 4 minutes where he does his demonstration you could just place a ball Earth in there and it's exactly the explanation given by the globe model, but most of the stuff in that video is laughably stupid.

>>10146612
>>10145845
A lot of this shit about the ecliptic and orbital planes is lacking so I'll try and input a bit here.
Before our solar system formed it would have been just a cloud of gas and dust. There would have been some angular momentum, because practically nothing is perfectly still, so as the gas drew towards the center it would have had a rotation similar to how water goes down a drain or hurricanes form.
As the Sun was formed the force of its gravity acted more on the dust cloud, causing it to rotate faster around the Sun. The obvious issue is that orbits need to be in a plane but the dust cloud wasn't a plane, so the majority of dust that was above and below the ecliptic (the plane made by the equator of the Sun) wouldn't have been in orbit and so would have fallen into the Sun and the planets then formed from the remaining dust that's actually in orbit around the Sun, on the ecliptic.
All of the objects in our solar system which have odd orbits would have formed on the ecliptic (or around other planets) and then been pushed by encounters with other objects into different orbits.

>>10146724
>Gravity and momentum.
What? How do multiple "planets" have the same "orbital plane"?
>Now answer my question.
If multiple planets are orbiting the same "orbital plane", then that would suggest that the "orbital plane" is a consequence of whatever it is that is being orbited, in this case the sun. An "orbital plane" suggests a flat surface, yet the sun is supposed to be spherical. How can a spherical object be the cause of an "orbital plane" that multiple bodies orbit, when a sphere is the opposite to a plane?

>>10146566
there are no other constalations it just looks like it because your perspective is shifted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=261&v=Jxae4cm9qR0

>>10146743
>A lot of this shit about the ecliptic and orbital planes is lacking so I'll try and input a bit here.
>Before our solar system formed it would have been just a cloud of gas and dust. There would have been some angular momentum, because practically nothing is perfectly still, so as the gas drew towards the center it would have had a rotation similar to how water goes down a drain or hurricanes form.
>As the Sun was formed the force of its gravity acted more on the dust cloud, causing it to rotate faster around the Sun. The obvious issue is that orbits need to be in a plane but the dust cloud wasn't a plane, so the majority of dust that was above and below the ecliptic (the plane made by the equator of the Sun) wouldn't have been in orbit and so would have fallen into the Sun and the planets then formed from the remaining dust that's actually in orbit around the Sun, on the ecliptic.
>All of the objects in our solar system which have odd orbits would have formed on the ecliptic (or around other planets) and then been pushed by encounters with other objects into different orbits.

This is >>>/x/ tier but is actually considered science. Anyway, the sun is supposedly composed of the lightest gases we know of, how did the elements with the least mass out of everything else become the object with the most mass/centre of the solar system? That's just seriously retarded.

>>10146745
>What? How do multiple "planets" have the same "orbital plane"?
Because they all formed from the same dust cloud. As the dust gets attracted to the middle of the cloud's mass, angular momentum causes it to spin faster. This spin throws the dust in the plane of rotation outward forming a disc.

>If multiple planets are orbiting the same "orbital plane", then that would suggest that the "orbital plane" is a consequence of whatever it is that is being orbited, in this case the sun. An "orbital plane" suggests a flat surface, yet the sun is supposed to be spherical. How can a spherical object be the cause of an "orbital plane" that multiple bodies orbit, when a sphere is the opposite to a plane?
You're just repeating what I'm asking you to explain, how does the shape of the object being orbited have any effect on the orbit? Do you just post things that sound good without thinking?

>>10146761
>Because they all formed from the same dust cloud. As the dust gets attracted to the middle of the cloud's mass, angular momentum causes it to spin faster. This spin throws the dust in the plane of rotation outward forming a disc.
"Dust clouds"? Seriously? I think it's time for your meds.
>You're just repeating what I'm asking you to explain, how does the shape of the object being orbited have any effect on the orbit? Do you just post things that sound good without thinking?
That's rich coming from a dust cloud schizo. What shape was the dust cloud? What shape was the centre of the dust cloud? How did this shape cause the spin?

>>10146745
>An "orbital plane" suggests a flat surface
Only if you're fucking stupid. Are you fucking stupid?

>>10146782
Yes.

>>10146781
>What shape was the dust cloud?
It could be any shape, doesn't matter.

>What shape was the centre of the dust cloud?
What do you mean by the center?

>How did this shape cause the spin?
The shape didn't cause the spin, it's irrelevant. Any net spin the cloud initially had would increase as matter was pulled towards the center. Think of an ice skater pulling his arms in to spin faster.

Now answer the question you keep avoiding: What does the shape of a planet or star have to do with the orbit around it? Until you answer this, I'm not answering any more of your retarded questions.

>>10146782
Are you a dust cloud schizo?

>>10146760
>Anyway, the sun is supposedly composed of the lightest gases we know of, how did the elements with the least mass out of everything else become the object with the most mass/centre of the solar system?
There was a lot more hydrogen around, a lot more.
The Sun isn't only composed of hydrogen (and helium) though, the signatures of the elements that made up the dust cloud are still present in it.

>>10146796
>It could be any shape, doesn't matter.
Our solar system's dust cloud was a cool shape though, right?
>What do you mean by the center?
You tell me! That thing you keep mentioning that attracts all the dust, creating angular momentum.
>>10146796
>The shape didn't cause the spin, it's irrelevant. Any net spin the cloud initially had would increase as matter was pulled towards the center. Think of an ice skater pulling his arms in to spin faster.
So the cloud was already connected with itself, so that it could spin all at once, as well as attract itself to its own centre (which has yet to be defined as anything).
>Now answer the question you keep avoiding: What does the shape of a planet or star have to do with the orbit around it? Until you answer this, I'm not answering any more of your retarded questions.
Well sir, is the orbit not directly linked to the shape of the mass? Or at least the shape of the centre of mass? Orbits go "around" because the mass is "round". If the mass was square, would the centre of mass also be square? Therefore the orbit square?

>>10146811
>There was a lot more hydrogen around, a lot more.
You're having those delusions again, take your damn meds!
>The Sun isn't only composed of hydrogen (and helium) though, the signatures of the elements that made up the dust cloud are still present in it.
*pats head* That's right, that's right...

>>10146815
>Well sir, is the orbit not directly linked to the shape of the mass?
No.

>Or at least the shape of the centre of mass?
Then center of mass is a point, it has no shape.

>Orbits go "around" because the mass is "round".
Wrong. They go around because they are attracted towards the center of mass but have momentum perpendicular to it.

> If the mass was square, would the centre of mass also be square? Therefore the orbit square?
No, you're a moron who has not the slightest clue what you're talking about. You know less than an elementary school student. Educate yourself, you pathetic cretin.

>>10146821
Handwaving doesn't get you anywhere.

>>10146815
>Our solar system's dust cloud was a cool shape though, right?
Probably nothing special.

>So the cloud was already connected with itself, so that it could spin all at once, as well as attract itself to its own centre (which has yet to be defined as anything).
All matter has gravity and our patch of cloud was likely created from the results of several supernova. The cloud would have been in motion simply because nothing was stopping it. As particles were drawn together, larger masses would form and, again, as the particles were in motion they would transfer that motion to the masses they joined.
The center would simply be where the largest mass formed the fastest.

>Well sir, is the orbit not directly linked to the shape of the mass?
>If the mass was square, would the centre of mass also be square? Therefore the orbit square?
Not at all. It's not entirely wrong to think of an orbit like a ball on a string. If you spin around holding that string the ball will spin around you on a plane. Your shape has nothing to do with the shape of the orbit.
Now there are some technicalities to this. For one, once objects get massive enough they tend to form spheres, so you're only really going to see oddly shaped things getting orbited in relatively small cases. Secondly, an oddly shaped planet (I'll use planet loosely here) would have an (even more) uneven gravitational pull on the satellite which could result in wonky aspects to the orbit; eccentricity, elongation and the like.

It's clear that the flat Earth retard is only denying reality because he doesn't understand basic concepts like gravitational orbit. I honestly feel sorry for him.

>>10146834
>Then center of mass is a point, it has no shape.
What? A "point" is a mathematical abstraction, it's an absolute disgrace to treat it like it's actually a physical thing. How fucking dare you.
>Wrong. They go around because they are attracted towards the center of mass but have momentum perpendicular to it.
Absolutely disgusting. Points don't exist in physical reality you incessant schizo.
>No, you're a moron who has not the slightest clue what you're talking about. You know less than an elementary school student. Educate yourself, you pathetic cretin.
An arrogant schizo to boot, the worst kind. Our dust cloud fucking sucked.

>>10146858
>What? A "point" is a mathematical abstraction, it's an absolute disgrace to treat it like it's actually a physical thing. How fucking dare you.
If you have mass then you have a center of mass. What you consider to be an abstraction is irrelevant to reality. Arguing otherwise is akin to denying that you have mass.

>Absolutely disgusting. Points don't exist in physical reality you incessant schizo.
So you have no argument left, thanks for admitting you lost.

>>10146858
It's kinda hilarious how correct you are, but how wrongly you're applying your knowledge.
You get a 10/10 from me.

>>10146848
>Handwaving doesn't get you anywhere.
You think "dust clouds" isn't handwaving!?
>All matter has gravity and our patch of cloud was likely created from the results of several supernova. The cloud would have been in motion simply because nothing was stopping it. As particles were drawn together, larger masses would form and, again, as the particles were in motion they would transfer that motion to the masses they joined.
Getting sick of you schizos. You realise you're just making up a story, right? Pulling shit out of your anus?
>The center would simply be where the largest mass formed the fastest.
When did that form?
>Not at all. It's not entirely wrong to think of an orbit like a ball on a string. If you spin around holding that string the ball will spin around you on a plane. Your shape has nothing to do with the shape of the orbit.
So an orbital plane is like a piece of string? Science bitch!
>Now there are some technicalities to this. For one, once objects get massive enough they tend to form spheres, so you're only really going to see oddly shaped things getting orbited in relatively small cases. Secondly, an oddly shaped planet (I'll use planet loosely here) would have an (even more) uneven gravitational pull on the satellite which could result in wonky aspects to the orbit; eccentricity, elongation and the like.
Wait, I thought mass curved space time? So an odd shaped mass would curve space time in the same odd shape right?

>>10146866
>If you have mass then you have a center of mass. What you consider to be an abstraction is irrelevant to reality. Arguing otherwise is akin to denying that you have mass.
I will deny I have mass, since that's a mathematical abstraction as well. It's meaningless in physical reality, because physical reality isn't perfect enough for these abstractions.
>So you have no argument left, thanks for admitting you lost.
Oh? I did? Interesting...

>>10146870
Where am I going wrong master?

>>10146874
>You think "dust clouds" isn't handwaving!?
Considering we can observe them with telescopes? No.
>You realise you're just making up a story, right? Pulling shit out of your anus?
No, this is all stuff we can observe in the universe.
>When did that form?
Difficult to determine. Like I said, it was simply the mass that formed the fastest. Estimates put our Sun about 4.6billion years old, but that's likely when it ignited, rather than when it started forming as a mass in the cloud, so it's probably closer to 5 billion.
>So an orbital plane is like a piece of string?
In terms of the shape of the orbit, yes. If you simply spin around it carves out a flat plane. You have to put force in to disturb that planar orbit.
>So an odd shaped mass would curve space time in the same odd shape right?
Exactly. Not entirely sure what the point you're trying to make here, but you got something right. Please at least try to remember that space time is three dimensional, not two dimensional as it is usually depicted for illustrative purposes, so the affects of this odd curvature in space time would be three dimensional.

>>10146885
>I will deny I have mass, since that's a mathematical abstraction as well. It's meaningless in physical reality, because physical reality isn't perfect enough for these abstractions.
Ah OK, so since you're a mathematical abstraction I'm not arguing with anything.

>>10146892
Points are an abstraction (mathematical or whatever), but that is kinda beside the point. We aren't treating the center of the mass as a physical thing, it's just a reference point. Basically if you draw a line from you through that point the path goes through the most mass of the object. That's basically why we say things are attracted to the center of mass.
Now, of course this point may not be in the exact center of the object, because of density, but that's again why it is a reference point.

>>10146893
>Considering we can observe them with telescopes? No.
Oh I had no idea, that changes everything...
>No, this is all stuff we can observe in the universe.
*pats head*
>Difficult to determine. Like I said, it was simply the mass that formed the fastest. Estimates put our Sun about 4.6billion years old, but that's likely when it ignited, rather than when it started forming as a mass in the cloud, so it's probably closer to 5 billion.
What a great imagination you have.
>In terms of the shape of the orbit, yes. If you simply spin around it carves out a flat plane. You have to put force in to disturb that planar orbit.
It's like you were there to witness it! Incredible.
>Exactly. Not entirely sure what the point you're trying to make here, but you got something right. Please at least try to remember that space time is three dimensional, not two dimensional as it is usually depicted for illustrative purposes, so the affects of this odd curvature in space time would be three dimensional.
So the shape does matter? Not the centre?

>>10146897
>so since you're a mathematical abstraction
What mathematical abstraction?

>>10146905
>We aren't treating the center of the mass as a physical thing
You sure about that?

>>10146918
Considering you offered nothing to refute most of my points there I'll ignore most of those responses.

>It's like you were there to witness it! Incredible.
Yes, I have observed a ball spin around and seen the flat plane it traces out.
>So the shape does matter? Not the centre?
Again, see >>10146905
The orbit will remain "circular" (elongated most likely), assuming it remains in orbit.
If you imagine Earth was a cube for a moment, when the Moon is in line with a corner of our cube Earth there would be a lot more mass on that path that traces through the center of the Earth than when it is in line with a flat side.
So there would be a greater gravitational pull on the Moon when it is in line with corners, but this wouldn't force the Moon into a square orbit, the most likely outcomes would be either the Moon crashing into Earth or slipping out into Solar orbit because of the Earth's rotation being so much faster than the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
So shape does matter but luckily as masses grow in size they take on spherical shapes which simplifies things. The cube Earth would smooth itself out so that the center of the mass is roughly through the same point from all directions.

>>10146934
Yes. The center of the mass is not a physical thing, the mass is the physical thing.

>>10146951
>Considering you offered nothing to refute most of my points there I'll ignore most of those responses.
You win this round schizo.
>Yes, I have observed a ball spin around and seen the flat plane it traces out.
What about the dust cloud?
>So shape does matter but luckily as masses grow in size they take on spherical shapes which simplifies things. The cube Earth would smooth itself out so that the center of the mass is roughly through the same point from all directions.
What creates the spherical shape? Surely the centre of mass is spherical too? But wait, that doesn't have a shape?
>Yes. The center of the mass is not a physical thing, the mass is the physical thing.
So how can mass (physical) be attracted to the centre of mass (non-physical)?

lmao @ this retard thread. A few things to point out:
1: Telescope companies hired Edward Bernays in the sixties to help increase their market. This was accomplished by fabricating a new near earth space object, dubbed "moon".
2: Bernays focused the public on this "moon", naturally inspiring curiosity and the desire to view it in detail. Thus, the marketing objective was complete.
How was this "moon" created? Two VERY important words: astral projection. The DOD has long been known to posses such technology.

It's a coincidence

>>10146993
Oi r u makin fun of david icke now m8?
Seriously though, reptilian puppet detected.

>>10147000

>>10146964
>Surely the centre of mass is spherical too? But wait, that doesn't have a shape?
Yeah, we have been over that.
>What creates the spherical shape?
Gravity. Again, all matter has gravity and the strongest gravitational pull of a mass will be on a path through the most mass. As the gravitational force will be uneven across the surface, matter will try to move to where the force is weakest on it (think high pressure into low pressure). As it does this it'll even out and become spherical (at least in so much as the mass is fairly evenly distributed). So long as the object is massive enough the small differences won't matter as much.
>So how can mass (physical) be attracted to the centre of mass (non-physical)?
Again, read >>10146905

>>10147000
Trips = truth

>>10146993
>1: Telescope companies hired Edward Bernays in the sixties to help increase their market. This was accomplished by fabricating a new near earth space object, dubbed "moon".
>the moon didnt exist before the sixties
This is a new level of delusion I was not prepared for.

>>10147006
>As the gravitational force will be uneven across the surface, matter will try to move to where the force is weakest on it (think high pressure into low pressure).
Actually, that's a terrible explanation. Let's ignore it.

>>10147006
>Yeah, we have been over that.
You've handwaved through it.
>Gravity. Again, all matter has gravity and the strongest gravitational pull of a mass will be on a path through the most mass.
So grabbity pulls objects in a straight path? By grabbing the other mass and pulling it to its centre (which doesn't exist and gravity isn't even a force because Newton was retard).
>As the gravitational force will be uneven across the surface
So it is a force? And gravity exists on the surface, as well as the centre? The schizo meds need to be doubled in dosage I think.
>Again, read >>10146905
What is gravity?

>>10147026
>You've handwaved through it.
No, we went into quite a bit of detail in explaining it, you just ignored it.
>So grabbity pulls objects in a straight path? By grabbing the other mass and pulling it to its centre (which doesn't exist
Eh, no not really. It's just that the greatest gravitational attraction between two bodies is through their centers, because that's the path that has the most mass.
Every point on each object is pulling on every other point on the other object. If you traced out all these vectors (which would be difficult as even small objects would have trillions of them) the majority would be on a line that traces through the center of both masses.
>and gravity isn't even a force because Newton was retard
I assume you are referring to how Einstein (and I'm not claiming he came up with the idea) defined gravity as bending of space time.
Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes gravity does act like a force, so it's not really wrong to think of it as one. The reference frame is important.
>So it is a force? And gravity exists on the surface, as well as the centre?
I believe I already covered this, but yes. All matter has gravity. It isn't created at the center of an object, all the matter that makes up the object has gravity.
>What is gravity?
An acceleration that matter exerts on other matter around it.

>>10146743
I literally stated facts about eclipses that are verified in the definitions of partial and total eclipses on that wikipedia page, what do you mean no? partials happen when you are in the penumbra and totals happen when you are in the umbra.

Please elaborate on what I'm missing.

>>10147036
>No, we went into quite a bit of detail in explaining it, you just ignored it.
Delusion.
>Eh, no not really. It's just that the greatest gravitational attraction between two bodies is through their centers, because that's the path that has the most mass.
The path to something non-physical?
>Every point on each object is pulling on every other point on the other object. If you traced out all these vectors (which would be difficult as even small objects would have trillions of them) the majority would be on a line that traces through the center of both masses.
Every point? I thought points were mathematical abstractions and don't actually exist in physical reality?
>I assume you are referring to how Einstein (and I'm not claiming he came up with the idea) defined gravity as bending of space time.
What an anti-semite you are.
>Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes gravity does act like a force, so it's not really wrong to think of it as one. The reference frame is important.
How could you ignore the fundamental fact of space-time? Space-time is as real as it gets, to ignore it is unthinkable.
>I believe I already covered this, but yes. All matter has gravity. It isn't created at the center of an object, all the matter that makes up the object has gravity.
If all matter has gravity, then how can objects have their own centres? How can there even be "objects"? How many centres does all matter have?
>An acceleration that matter exerts on other matter around it.
Meaningless.

>>10147045
Annular eclipses.

>>10147051
I didn't mention them, but I suppose it is a big coincidence that we're alive at the same time that total/hybrid/annular eclipses can all happen.

>>10147046
>The path to something non-physical?
The path through a non-physical point inside something physical.
>Every point? I thought points were mathematical abstractions and don't actually exist in physical reality?
And? The points are just referencing locations on/in the mass.
>What an anti-semite you are.
Interesting deduction.
>How could you ignore the fundamental fact of space-time? Space-time is as real as it gets, to ignore it is unthinkable.
I'm not ignoring it. It's just much more complicated to explain how gravity acts on objects through the lens of distorted spacetime and rarely makes any difference. Newtonian gravity is good enough for conceptualizing what we are talking about.
>If all matter has gravity, then how can objects have their own centres? How can there even be "objects"? How many centres does all matter have?
Partly because the are other forces around, like the nuclear forces, which are stronger than gravity. That means that particles don't rely on gravity to bind together, so clearly a "center" can exist without gravity.
But that aside, remember that gravity is in all directions. You have two particles in space somewhere that pull on each other and come together. The "point" in the "center" of that "object" made of two particles is between the two particles.
A third particle appears. All three particles pull on each other. As gravity falls off over distance there's no way the third particle could separate one of the first two from the other, so they just come together and end up in a configuration where the third is stable. Now the "point" in the "center" of the "object" is on a line through the most mass. It could be inside a particle, it could be outside a particle, it just depends on the configuration.

>>10147059
Not really. If only one of them could happen that'd mean our Moon has a super stable orbit.
Dinosaurs would have witnessed similar eclipses.

>>10145598
Except, the bottom is exactly what happens on earth. Top right only happens in small gravity aka on your table.

>>10146993
Are you insinuating that the moon was invented in the 1960's?

>>10147084
Top-right actually never happens, it's just a good approximation when the curvature is small.

>>10147080
and the first organisms alive would missed out on annular eclipses, i thought the earth moved more than ~1 inch per year but I was wrong.

this thread is a waste of space so I'll be leaving.

>>10147084
>>10147088
top right happens in gravitational fields that are uniform, like what you'd experience accelerating in deep space.

not sure why you're feeding some flat earther troll though

>>10147087
Are you insinuating that it wasn't, brainlet?

>>10138421
>Yes kids, by pure chance!

>>10147073
>The path through a non-physical point inside something physical.
How can you have a path (physical) through something non-physical? And how can something non-physical be inside something physical? You are treating it as a physical thing.
>And? The points are just referencing locations on/in the mass.
They can't reference anything physical if they are not physical themselves.
>Interesting deduction.
>>>/pol/
>I'm not ignoring it. It's just much more complicated to explain how gravity acts on objects through the lens of distorted spacetime and rarely makes any difference. Newtonian gravity is good enough for conceptualizing what we are talking about.
Which exists in physical reality? Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity?
>Partly because the are other forces around, like the nuclear forces, which are stronger than gravity. That means that particles don't rely on gravity to bind together, so clearly a "center" can exist without gravity.
AKA electromagnetism, the true fundamental force of physical reality.
>But that aside, remember that gravity is in all directions. You have two particles in space somewhere that pull on each other and come together. The "point" in the "center" of that "object" made of two particles is between the two particles.
>A third particle appears. All three particles pull on each other. As gravity falls off over distance there's no way the third particle could separate one of the first two from the other, so they just come together and end up in a configuration where the third is stable. Now the "point" in the "center" of the "object" is on a line through the most mass. It could be inside a particle, it could be outside a particle, it just depends on the configuration.
This would require a perfect vacuum, which don't exist. Apparently the earth's atmosphere is being held to the earth by gravity, where is the centre of the earth's atmosphere?

>>10147094
>not sure why you're feeding some flat earther troll though
Nothing else to do tbqh senpai

Y'all *could* sage your replies. That leaves only the troll, and the thread dies.

>>10147098
I'm not sure what the point of this is. If you think 666 has any kind of significance, then you believe, in part, in the devil. But then surely you acknowledge God, the maker of heaven and Earth. So any 666 found in nature is either placed their intentionally by God, or is a coincidence. But is not significant beyond that.

>>10147107
>Y'all
Enjoy your AIDS, cowgirl.

>>10147094
>>10147106
not troll you circle jerking brainlets just dont understand that there is no proof what so ever of any curvature on this planet

>>10147107
Reported for announcing sage desu
>>10147115
Dude have you ever been on an areoplane?

>>10147116
sage

>>10147104
>How can you have a path (physical)
The path isn't physical. I don't know what you're talking about.
>They can't reference anything physical if they are not physical themselves.
Sure you can. You were the one that called points abstractions, do you even understand what an abstraction is?
>Which exists in physical reality? Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity?
They're both methods of explaining the same observations. Einsteinian gravity does a better job of explaining it in all cases than Newtonian, but Newtonian is fine for the majority.
>AKA electromagnetism, the true fundamental force of physical reality.
Electromagnetism is another one of the fundamental forces, true, but electromagnetism doesn't explain all interactions.
>This would require a perfect vacuum, which don't exist.
True, but it is an illustration.
>Apparently the earth's atmosphere is being held to the earth by gravity, where is the centre of the earth's atmosphere?
The center of the Earth. I know that's going to confuse you but that's the answer. This is just another example of what I illustrated before, the center doesn't even need to be inside the particles that make up the object.

>>10147115
the earth being round follows from gravity existing, and we can proof objects attract each other using gravitational forces. Do you believe that experiments confirming gravity exists and is predictable are faked?

>>10147115
what about lunar eclipses?

>>10147116
you will never see curve ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWOquYkL7_k

>>10147135
pay attention to the thead newfag

>>10147144
i said lunar eclipse, not solar eclipse, newfag.

>>10147145
if the sun can eclipse the moon why cant the reverse happen

>>10147131
>The path isn't physical. I don't know what you're talking about.
So how can the path go through anything? This is metaphysics, not science.
>Sure you can. You were the one that called points abstractions
A point is non-physical, how can it reference something physical without being physical itself?
>do you even understand what an abstraction is?
No, what is it?
>They're both methods of explaining the same observations. Einsteinian gravity does a better job of explaining it in all cases than Newtonian, but Newtonian is fine for the majority.
So they're essentially stories regarding the behaviour of physical observations. That is metaphysics, not science.
>Electromagnetism is another one of the fundamental forces, true, but electromagnetism doesn't explain all interactions.
I'm sure it could if you got rid of retard gravity.
>True, but it is an illustration.
Doesn't apply to physical reality.
>The center of the Earth. I know that's going to confuse you but that's the answer. This is just another example of what I illustrated before, the center doesn't even need to be inside the particles that make up the object.
But the centre of the earth doesn't exist in physical reality. Is the atmosphere considered one whole mass, with a centre, or trillions of bits of mass with trillions of centres (that don't exist)?

>>10147163
a lunar eclipse is when the earth blocks the sun's light on the moon, it happens in almost the same configuration that a solar eclipse happens in.

It's proof that the earth is round because the earth is between the two objects and casts a circular shadow.

>>10147164
>>10147131
are these bots or something? they're both spewing nonsense

>>10147180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=raO9RS3b8-A

>>10147200
ok show me a picture of a day time lunar eclipse, the only real argument he makes is that lunar eclipses have happened during the day and are therefore not proof.

>>10147111
>666 found in nature
I meant to say 666 is written all over the geocentric model and not in nature. Considering it is a man-made model, we can gather that the man uses imperial system and is a follower of some sort of abrahamic religion. Conversely if it is naturally occurring, then imperial system is divine has some cosmic significance.

>>10147200

>>10147200
his math doesn't check out

>>10147212

>>10147209

>>10147228
its still explained by refraction until you prove that the refraction explanation is wrong. Your video just made the claim that the math was wrong and cited a person who said so, it didn't show that the math was wrong

>>10147164
>So how can the path go through anything?
It's an abstraction.
>A point is non-physical, how can it reference something physical without being physical itself?
By being an abstraction. That's what you called it.
>No, what is it?
Why did you call things abstractions if you don't know what abstractions are?
>So they're essentially stories regarding the behaviour of physical observations.
That's basically science. We observe physical behaviors and try to make models that can predict those physical behaviors. Sometimes the underlying mechanism isn't even important in making a workable model.
>I'm sure it could if you got rid of retard gravity.
No, then there would be a gap.
>Doesn't apply to physical reality.
Yes, it does. You just have to scale it up.
>But the centre of the earth doesn't exist in physical reality.
We have been over this.
>Is the atmosphere considered one whole mass, with a centre, or trillions of bits of mass with trillions of centres (that don't exist)?
I honestly don't think you can really separate the atmosphere from Earth in regards to its mass. Sure, it's not solid, but it's still part of Earth and it's mass plays a part when you are talking about gravitational interactions with Earth. Same goes for the oceans.

>>10147233
as this pic shows>>10147224 a shadow covering a round object fully is bound to make the shadow round you have yet to show me how this proves round earth because you are making the claim
round earth is so flimsy i can use your own model agenst you. wake up man its flat

>>10147228
>daytime lunar eclipse

>>10147250
the sun is out what are you even trying to say

>>10147253
Doubtful. You can see lights (probably house lights or street lights) so at best it is predawn. Also, there is no sign of sunlight on the hills.
Anyway, the lunar eclipse isn't full at that point, probably ending, which means the moon is leaving the shadow which is totally fine, even if the Sun is about to rise.

>>10147253
Sun is not out - pic is taken at twilight, which is after sunset but before it gets dark.

>>10147246
>It's an abstraction.
Metaphysics.
>By being an abstraction. That's what you called it.
Metaphysics.
>Why did you call things abstractions if you don't know what abstractions are?
It's an abstraction.
>That's basically science. We observe physical behaviors and try to make models that can predict those physical behaviors. Sometimes the underlying mechanism isn't even important in making a workable model.
I'm afraid that's metaphysics, not science.
>No, then there would be a gap.
Then we'd just use dark electromagnetism.
>Yes, it does. You just have to scale it up.
No.
>We have been over this.
Metaphysics.
>I honestly don't think you can really separate the atmosphere from Earth in regards to its mass. Sure, it's not solid, but it's still part of Earth and it's mass plays a part when you are talking about gravitational interactions with Earth. Same goes for the oceans.
If you can't separate the atmosphere from the earth, how can you separate anything else that's on/in the earth, from the earth?

>>10138204
>The sun and moon differ vastly in their size and distance, despite eclipsing each other perfectly year after year
Wrong. https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/annular-eclipse/

>>10147248
that pic shows a curved shadow, if you looked at the shadow passing over, the time it was covered, and the shadow leaving the object, you would see that it was part of a circular shadow. The moon is covered by part of a large circular shadow in that picture.

I'm not sure why you think that picture proves anything.

>>10147265
>>10147262
http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/gert/sunset_mooneclipse/sun_moon_eclipse.htm

>>10147276
yes, and this is explained by refraction.

seen here.
>>10147212

>>10147278
i only did this to show that it could happen on a flat earth, anon earlier was questioning me about it

This is now a Carl Jung thread.

>>10147266
>everything i dont understand = metaphysics
Interesting.
>If you can't separate the atmosphere from the earth, how can you separate anything else that's on/in the earth, from the earth?
In terms of Earth's gravity, you don't.
For the atmosphere, it's not really cohesive enough that you can point to a location in it and say it's the center. You could if it was inside a balloon or something, but then imagine if you have a small balloon of helium suspended in the center of a balloon of oxygen. Where is the center of the balloon of oxygen? (It's inside the balloon of helium.)

Because Earth's atmosphere covers the Earth, its center is the center of the Earth. If it was local/isolated somewhere then it would have a different center point.

>Then we'd just use dark electromagnetism.
A pseudonym for gravity. As I am sure you're aware, the names themselves aren't important. We just use names to differentiate things.
So as long as we are differentiating this force from electromagnetism, nothing changes.

>>10147276
>The following images show the setting sun and the rising partially eclipsed moon.
Yeah, partially. That's fine.

>>10147286
ok, but I gave you an explanation for why that phenomenon (both moon and sun at opposite sides of the sky) is visible on a globe earth due to refraction, are you going to refute that claim outside of posting a video where the creator just says the math doesnt work? or will you show me that the math does not work. I see the refraction explanation as perfectly valid.

I'm aware that a belief in the firmament and stars being a lie kind of undermines this discussion because there would be no gradient of atmosphere and space for the refraction to happen, but just humor the idea that gravity is the reason things are round for a moment and show that the math does not work.

>>10147298
not my claim, i dont have to explain your own belief man, its like trying to tell a terrified child the boggie man is not real and he wants you to tell him why

>>10147306
you used it as a source for a refutation of yours and now refuse to back it up.

Equating a discussion to that is a great indicator of your mental state.

Have fun making 4chan that much worse, I'm gone.

>>10147328
you know that the original claim was that a lunar eclipse could not exist on a flat earth, and i showed other wise now you get mad because i send a video of something that was backing up my claim and added something else i never claimed , and its my fult some how that i cant explain your new straw man that i never said. you are a brainlet, please reread what happend and learn to keep on track of the claim i made fuck you doubble nigger

>>10147294
>everything i dont understand = metaphysics
>Interesting.
Do you know what metaphysics is? Because gravity is metaphysics, not science.
>For the atmosphere, it's not really cohesive enough that you can point to a location in it and say it's the center.
But the atmosphere has mass, so what part of it is being attracted to the centre of the earth?
>Where is the center of the balloon of oxygen? (It's inside the balloon of helium.)
It doesn't exist.
>Because Earth's atmosphere covers the Earth, its center is the center of the Earth. If it was local/isolated somewhere then it would have a different center point.
Impossible, the atmosphere has mass separate to the centre of the earth, therefore requires a centre(s) of mass to be attracted to the earth's centre.
>So as long as we are differentiating this force from electromagnetism, nothing changes.
It's electromagnetism, only dark.

>>10147345
>But the atmosphere has mass, so what part of it is being attracted to the centre of the earth?
All of it. From every point.
>It doesn't exist.
Now that's just being stupid.
>Impossible, the atmosphere has mass separate to the centre of the earth, therefore requires a centre(s) of mass to be attracted to the earth's centre.
Look, we have already determined the center of the Earth is a location, not a physical object. Because the atmosphere not cohesive, like a solid, it's not going to be acted on like a single entity. Molecules of atmosphere are not all bound together. It would be kinda difficult to breathe if they were.
>Do you know what metaphysics is? Because gravity is metaphysics, not science.
Kinda depends what definition of metaphysics you are going with. I'm betting on the abstract theory definition.
>It's electromagnetism, only dark.
So you've still differentiated it from regular electromagnetism.