/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10161173
simple, you're a retard

I don't understand what it is that you aren't understanding. If you see the moon in the sky and you turn away from it, the moon will be in a different position in your view, like literally any other object you turn away from or toward regardless of distance. This has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

>>10161173
>daddy
Disgusting degeneracy.

>>10161173
Because your nose is pointing in different directions. There is more than one angle that you are dealing with. You ain't a retard. I have put a lot of thoughts into the seemingly crazy shit that the moon is always pulling.

If I may tag along in your thread. (I'm too shy to make my own:)

I notice that every time the moon is waxing, the bright side is on my right. And on my left when it wanes. Is this true all over the world? Day and night. It is true everywhere I have been. And yes I know my nomenclature is incorrect in saying Bright side. I'm using laymen terms.

>>10161204
Your view of the moon rotates 180 degrees as you move from north to south pole

>>10161173
The thing that is que wrong with flat earthers is that they jump into conclussions so fast that they miss all the little things happening outside its circle of thought

>>10161173
No funposting, real shit, are you actually this retarded?

Are you going to ask why the moon is behind you when you turn around?

>>10161173
>brunette
>bunny ears
>braces
>fishnets
>"yes daddy"
Too bad she's a chink otherwise this hits almost all of my buttons.

Anyway to keep this post on topic you're an idiot and the earth is round

>>10161453
what are you talking about
shes white

>>10161453
What's it like being blind?

>>10161173
The moon is so obviously local. Just look at the way it lights up the clouds locally.

>>10161198
laugh at this fuckin pleb

>>10161538
2 bad m laffin @ ur lyfe 1st kek
;^)

The moon is lit up evenly across its surface. How is this possible if it's spherical?

>>10161173
I drew this a while ago.

>>10161173
It's almost like the road has bends in it

>>10161569
You do realise waxes and wanes right?

>>10161511
Ding dong you are wrong

>>10161518
Why don't you tell me fagit?

>>10161173
How does a flat earth model fit this phenomenon better?

>>10161598
Talking about full moon.

>>10161601
LMAO, you are so dumb. Instead of looking up who she is, you used image recognition to try to detect her race. She's definitely not Asian. I can tell you her name if you can't find it yourself

>>10161609
Why would it not have even light? The Sun's rays reach the entire hemisphere of the moon facing it, and unlike the Earth there is no atmosphere so that the light to the furthest east and west is not absorbed and refracted more. Therefore you can have an even light.

>>10161609
Because we only see 49% of the moon, because that’s about the limit of how much of a sphere you can see, and everything we do see is bounced back at us because we’re looking at it from the same perspective as the sun. Partial moons we do see dimming, which is impossible to explain with a non-spherical moon

>>10161616
Because the sun's rays will hit the center of the spherical moon at a more direct angle than the outer "edges", so the center should be the brightest.

>>10161614
I know who she is you troglodyte, she still looks asian or hapa at best.

>>10161624
So you admit that you were wrong when you said
>Too bad she's a chink
and
>Ding dong you are wrong
or are you trying to shift the goalpost?

>>10161624
So you admit that you were wrong when you said
>Too bad she's a chink
and
>Ding dong you are wrong
or are you trying to shift the goalpost? Also, if you know who she is, why did you say she's Asian in the first place?

>>10161620
Why does the moon light up the clouds locally?

>>10161632
>defending a random asian e-thot this hard

>>10161636
What?

The moon is an indirect light source because of the sun, so it lights things up

>>10161637
I'm was just calling out your retardation when you suddenly started contradicting yourself, and now you're pretending that you were pretending to be retarded this whole time

>>10161636
Scattering

>>10161173
really doesn't look azn, I'd believe latina

>>10161641
>>10161644

how do you explain clouds that are only visible when the sun is below the horizon? in your 'model' the sun would never be below the clouds
you can see them on summer nights, I have

>>10161653
That's scattering

>>10161653
What is there to explain about this? What is the problem with the globist model in explaining this phenomenon? How does the flat earth model fit this better?

>>10161621
That's not true. The moon is not a spherical mirror. The basalt surface of the moon reflects light rays at random angles, regardless of the angle of incidence.

>>10161654
What model of are you talking about? When the miles of atmosphere above the clouds are not saturated with light, it is easier to see light-color objects like clouds.

>>10161654
Due to perspective (the angle at which you are viewing the light source). In pic related, you can see how the lights further away are at an angle lower than the closer lights, therefore at angle to light up things that they are actually higher than.

>>10161656
>>10161664
Why aren't the majority of the clouds in the sky lit up by the moon, if it is as far away and of the dimensions claimed in the globe model?

>>10161688
Scattering

>>10161683
lmao, I hope you're serious, that's fucking hilarious
go read some fucking Euclid

>>10161676
Therefore how can it be evenly lit if that was the case?

>>10161690
Local scattering?

>>10161699
Just scattering

>>10161700
So global scattering?

>>10161693
Brainlet, light is emitted in every direction, there's nothing stopping the sun from lighting up the underside of a cloud.

>>10161708
and we can't see the sun in the night, while it's lighting up the underside of clouds from above, because?

>>10161705
Scattering is scattering

>>10161697
When you look at the moon along the edges, you are actually looking at more surface area because of its curvature. More surface area = more light reflected, but since the angle is oblique, the intensity is decreased. These two effects cancel each other. It's the same reason a solid colored basket ball doesn't like brighter in the middle when it is noon out.

>>10161688
They are all lit up evenly. Why does it look brighter when the moon is directly over a cloud from your perspective? Because you are seeing the light rays, as opposed to being at the wrong angle to see the light waves on the other clouds. That’s how viewing works with everything.

Again, how does the flat earth model explain this better? You would see the exact same phenomenon in both situations

>>10161715
Why would you be able to see the sun if it’s over the horizon? The other user already posted an image of the sun lighting up clouds over the horizon, if that’s what you mean

>>10161715
Because it's too far away - its light is blocked by too much atmosphere.

>>10161719
But moon is in direct sunlight, reflecting enough to create moonlight which is strong enough to penetrate the earth's atmosphere all the way to the ground. The basketball is not the same.

>>10161777
What? A basketball is also indirect sunlight when it’s in the sun. Do you know how light works?

>>10161751
>Again, how does the flat earth model explain this better? You would see the exact same phenomenon in both situations
The globe has the moon much further away and much bigger, therefore the light bouncing off of it would affect much of the sky. What we see instead is local illumination of the sky from the moon. You claim this is a result of perspective, but that doesn't cut it, because there are clouds that should be illuminated that aren't, all over the sky.

why do you faggots keep getting baited by these low effort threads

>>10161777
Whats the difference?

>>10161781
Can you show me a basketball being lit up evenly across its surface in direct sunlight?

So, what's the scoop on the girl in the pic? I was seeing a bit of aisian because of the epicanthal folds in the eyelids but I know the aisians don't have a hundred percent market share on those.

Also. How would the same moon look different from north/south of the equator. Just to stay on topic.

>>10161801
I've been in here three times to look at the honey bear

>>10161801
>waahhhh why are you discussing science

>>10161803
You talk a good one - but you don't do what you supposed to do
I act on what I feel and never deal with emotions
I'm used to living big dog style and straight coasting

>>10161795
What? Are flat weathers now claiming the entire earth sees the exact same sky, and that the moon’s light is localized? This is objectively false because Polaris is almost directly above people in northern Canada, while it’s not even visible in southern Chile.

Also, why can an entire hemisphere of the earth witness a total lunar eclipse, but only very specific spots can witness a total solar eclipse?

Also, why is it when you see a dark spot in the clouds, then drive underneath them, the moon doesn’t disappear? This is the dumbest thing I’ve read yet

>>10161805
Do your own experiment :^]

>>10161815
>I act on what I feel and never deal with emotions I'm used to living big dog style and straight coasting

>>10161805
No, because I don’t have a collection of basketball photos in the sun, and neither does anyone else. You’re the one that claimed basketballs and the moon had different properties, and that a basketball would look evenly lit up, while the moon wouldn’t.

>>10161822
>What? Are flat weathers now claiming the entire earth sees the exact same sky, and that the moon’s light is localized? This is objectively false because Polaris is almost directly above people in northern Canada, while it’s not even visible in southern Chile.
>Also, why can an entire hemisphere of the earth witness a total lunar eclipse, but only very specific spots can witness a total solar eclipse?
>Also, why is it when you see a dark spot in the clouds, then drive underneath them, the moon doesn’t disappear?
All of these things are evidence of the locality of the light being observed, as well as the stationary nature of the earth that allows these observations to be made easily. I don't know why you think they do your model any favours.

>>10161840
Explain to me why I can see Polaris, the North Star, but someone in Australia cannot

>>10161824
What will happen?

>>10161173
I would fuck her globe if you catch my drift

>>10161828
Why do so many globefags urinate like that? Some kind of genetic defect.

>>10161834
>a basketball would look evenly lit up, while the moon wouldn’t
That was the globalist, not me.

>>10161855
He globalist claimed they would look the same because of the same properties.

Are you trolling or are you actually mentally disabled?

>>10161844
Because they are local. Do you know how perspective affects objects in the sky that get further away?

>>10161856
>He globalist claimed they would look the same because of the same properties.
So the moon is not lit up evenly in direct sunlight?
>Are you trolling or are you actually mentally disabled?
I think you're the one that's trolling. Also the vast majority, if not all, of mentally disabled people are globalists. They're on your side.

>>10161857
But we both see the moon. If someone is in Alaska, and someone is in Chile, both people can see the moon. However only the Alaskan can see the North Star. How is this possible with localized skies?

>>10161868
The moon is closer to Alaska and Chile, than Polaris is.

>>10161864
There are more retards per capita that believe in a flat earth

>>10161873
How does that explain why one side of the earth can see it but the other cannot?

>>10161874
The retards that believe flat earth are more open minded and less cowardly than the retards that believe in the globe. We have a higher grade of retard.

>>10161875
Because Polaris is closer to Alaska than it is to Chile.

>>10161884
And the moon isn’t? Or is the moon always equidistant from everything on earth at all times in some sort of weird fucked up geometry?

>>10161890
Depends where it is. The point is that Polaris stays in one place and will always be too far to see from Chile, but close enough to see in Alaska. The moon can be in positions where it is close enough to both Alaska and Chile to be seen by both countries.

>>10161892
How far is the moon from the earth's surface?

>>10161898
I don't know - sometimes it looks very close, other times a bit further away. Sometimes it looks extremely bright with a blue hue, other times a bit duller and yellow. It must be in the atmosphere.

>>10161911
The moon in our atmosphere. Wow thats crazy, there must be a huge amount of drag on it. I wonder what force keeps in in motion.

>>10161911
The moon doesn’t change sizes, it’s almost the exact same size relative to the sky at all times.

>>10161915
Magic. The thing about Flat Earthers is they don’t have to explain anything. They can just point out stuff that they don’t understand and refuse to listen to anyone who tries to explain why that is

>>10161915
The atmosphere does get less and less dense. In terms of a "force", the best guess would be electromagnetic in nature. Photographing a solar eclipse using infrared captures this rather well. Or are we looking at curved space-time instead?

>>10161928
Amateur pilots can fly in the atmosphere. Why don’t we have any amateur pilots flying into the moon, to prove it’s close?

>>10161928
Wow that is interesting. Especially how the image doesnt look anything like field lines. Does that mean there is a missing 5th Maxwell equation?

>>10161934
On top of that, why doesn’t the moon look way bigger when you’re in a plane? Wouldn’t it be massive in the sky?

>>10161915
We see through the atmosphere. Are you really this dumb?

>>10161927
>The moon doesn’t change sizes, it’s almost the exact same size relative to the sky at all times.
Pic related. It also changes colour, does it not?

>>10161934
I'm sure you can work that one out.

>>10161942
No? The guy im responding to said that the moon might be in our atmosphere. Maybe he is the dumbass?

>>10161936
>Does that mean there is a missing 5th Maxwell equation?
There'd have to be wouldn't there?

>>10161949
Incredible. That would be utterly ground breaking. If you had to guess, would would be the term in the equation? The person to discover such a thing will win the nobel prize and beyond.

>>10161943
You just posted the minimum and maximum size of the moon relative to us. That’s like a 5% difference which is unnoticeable if you’re watching it.

The moon only changes colors during a total lunar eclipse, or when seen during sunrise/sunset/during the day

>>10161947
Well what did you mean "guy he is responding to?" I did not take his meaning this way but maybe I need to put my dumbass glasses on

>>10161937
It does look bigger. You can zoom in further on the moon from a plane too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOZChRjxXC4

Testing this new 4channel shit.

>>10161954
Dark electricity

>>10161957
??????????

The fuck is this video lmao. Even a comment asks why it looks so small

>>10161959
Brilliant. Im sure you have extensive knowledge of physics.

>>10161943
Of course it doesn't change size unless you are counting addition for rocks and shit hitting it over eons. It appears to change side if you are closer to it as everything does. There are mountains and airplanes. And our perception of it is judged differently if it is closer to the horizon and we compare it to houses ar whatever.

>>10161956
Why are you even talking to me if you did not write the post that mine was in response to? Fucking retard.

>>10161955
Has there never been a time where you've observed the moon looking bigger and brighter than other times? This is ignoring super moons.
>The moon only changes colors during a total lunar eclipse, or when seen during sunrise/sunset/during the day
Therefore affected by the light in the atmosphere, correct?

>>10161958
Retard... That is how this 4chan shit works.

Who's that girl? Oh yeah, and like, the moon or somthing

>>10161970
Moonrise/moonset looks bigger because of perspective, but if you actually take a picture with it and compare when the moon is in the sky, you’ll see it’s the exact same size. Super moon is the bigger moon in the post I quoted, when it’s at periapsis with the earth. Other than that I have no idea what you’re talking about.

>>10161960
Come on brainlet, it definitely looks closer from a plane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwRE4cokr5c

>>10161970
>Therefore affected by light in the atmosphere

Our perception of the moon looks different because of light in the atmosphere, yes. Because of polarizing rays the sun gives off, it distorts what the sky looks like. Same reason the sky is blue during the day, but transparent at night

>>10161964
They wouldn't award a Nobel Prize to someone who didn't - too embarrassing.

>>10162006
Is that why you have yet to win one?

>>10161968
> It appears to change side if you are closer to it as everything does.
Everything local, that is.

>>10161991
>Moonrise/moonset looks bigger because of perspective, but if you actually take a picture with it and compare when the moon is in the sky, you’ll see it’s the exact same size.
What does this even mean?

>>10162002
Therefore something local (the atmosphere) is affecting something local (the moon).

>>10162000
I don't know if it actually looks closer or not until somebody actually measures its angular size--on the ground and at high altitude. That such a simple experiment, its likely already been performed before. Do you have any quantitative evidence, anon?

>>10162009
Yes. Doesn't matter though as I will create my own award which will be infinitely more prestigious, and then award it to myself.

>>10161173
>what are trees

>>10162023
Take a photo with the moon in the middle of he sky. Take a photo with the same zoom distance and the moon on the horizon. Compare the size of the moon in the photos. You’ll see they’re the exact same size

>>10162028
What do you mean by local?

>>10162030
>That such a simple experiment, its likely already been performed before.
You'd be surprised. I've still yet to see a sunset be filmed on a plane using a solar filter.

>>10162034
Why would perspective make the moon look bigger during moonrise/set?

>>10162038
"Part" of the earth.

>>10161614
>name
what is it then

>>10162043
So perform the experiment, then get back to me on the difference in angular size. I think you'll find it to be negligibly small.

>>10162086
I'd rather not do it looking through the plane's curved glass windows. I need to be in the open air.

>>10162101
Okay, have fun.

>>10162049
Because objects look bigger when they’re close to things

>>10162057
Stars do the same thing. They look different depending on the time of day. Are stars also part of earth?

>>10162124
I thought the sun was farther away when it sets?

>>10162106
Here are some clips of the moon from the ISS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t8UNxY2bgQ

As a globalist, this footage must fill you with glee, because it's 1000% legit. You can't fake that. Correct?

>>10162124
So atmospheric lensing doesn't have an effect?

>>10162137
I don't think it's fake. What is your point?

>>10162127
Yes of course, stars are also local. You believe you're looking at light that takes 10s of thousands of years to reach your eyes, which is a schizo belief.

>>10162158
So if im in the northern hemisphere, that meand i am closer to polaris than I am to australia?

>>10162133
Yes it is, you're responding to a globalist (who ignores atmospheric lensing).

>>10162157
>I don't think it's fake.
It's not easy lying to yourself knowingly.

Flat earthers, why does the sunset look like the sun is passing over the horizon instead of eclipsing itself in the middle of the sky, if it were a spotlight sunset?

>>10162161
You're closer to Polaris than Australia is. I don't know how far away Polaris is, but it is close enough to be seen with the naked eye and is affected by perspective.

>>10162167
So why did you post that video if you think its fake?

>>10162167
What determines if an object is "local"? We established that Polaris is local to me, but if Australia is possibly closer to me than polaris, that would make Australia also local to me. Is that the case?

>>10162170
The sun itself isn't flat, it's just the light from the sun onto the earth is like a spotlight, and doesn't cover the entire earth at once (with the help from the air that stops the light illuminating a larger area).

>>10162182
So why do mountains cast horizontal shadows during sunset, if the sun is above the mountains?

>>10162184
>>10162182
How is a sunset possible on a plane? Planes fly higher than anything possible, what is the sun hiding behind?

>>10162172
I posted it because I think it's fake. And I believe globalists would think the same, but you have to pretend you think it's real due to your religion. I find that amusing.

>>10162064
https://www.instagram.com/belle.delphine/

>>10162186
The horizon

>>10162201
What is the horizon? Or I guess, what is your perception of the horizon? How can a horizon exist on a flat plane when the observer is the tallest thing on that plane?

Or are you now suggesting that the earth is plateau shaped? Because if it is, that would completely destroy any spotlight sun argument.

>>10162174
Australia is local of course. It's not just about being able to observe things in the sky. The same sun seen by you is seen by Australia.

>>10162184
The sun doesn't need to be below the mountains for its light to be below the mountains, causing those shadows.

>>10162186
>what is the sun hiding behind?
The air.

>>10162207
You'd agree this was taken on a flat surface? What is happening to the bottom of the hurdles?

>>10162231
They're converging on a single point above my line of sight. If this went on forever on a flat plane it would never dip below anything, it would converge to the line of the horizon.

I'm glad you chose a box because it illustrates this perfectly. Each hurdle the top gets lower by smaller and smaller increments and the bottom rises in smaller and smaller increments, and you can clearly see they're converging on one another.

This image demonstrates completely why a horizon can't exist on a flat earth.

>>10162239
Sorry, it shows what a horizon is on a flat earth, and why nothing could ever "set" on said horizon.

>>10162230
>Air

If that were the case, the sun would dissipate in the sky instead of fall beyond a horizon.

>>10162239
You asked how a horizon could exist when a person is always going to be higher than it, so the picture demonstrates how perspective forces light in the distance to converge at one's eye level.

So how can things like the sun appear to disappear behind it? Well, what are we looking through when observing a sun set? What is changing the colour of the sun and its light? The air. Particularly its density. Where is the densest air? On the earth's surface. What does perspective do to the earth's surface? Pull it up towards eye level as it goes into the distance. What does perspective do to things above eye level like the sun? Pull it down towards the earth's surface to converge at eye level.

As perspective forces the sun to get lower and lower, as well as the surface to get higher and higher, the bottom of the sun will be seen through more and more atmosphere, meaning less and less becomes visible. The sun's angular size also decreases. This combination gives the illusion the sun is going down, behind curvature, when it is actually fading bottom up through more and more atmosphere. It is an optical illusion.

>>10162269
I'm clearly not getting it. Please explain to me how this makes sense

>>10162252
It does dissipate, only it does this bottom up as the densest layer of the air covers it up as it gets further away and smaller. Gif related, high powered zoom shows the sun doesn't disappear behind the water/land curvature, rather the dense layer of air.

>>10162284
>High powered zoom

Okay so you guys are trolling. It was fun talking to you guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2pu_xhBnzY

>>10161173
Because a change in azimuth is not the same as a distance moved.

Yes

>>10162282
You agree that the horizon line is not actually real, and is an effect of perspective? Therefore the horizon line is higher than it actually is? Anything that touches and moves beyond that horizon line will be merged with it, becoming extremely compressed, as well as being hidden by the densest air. The top of the sun isn't yet touching the horizon line, nor passing through the densest possible air. It itsead becomes enlarged due to atmospheric lensing, further adding to the illusion that it is not getting smaller/further away. Gif related shows how it get smaller, then bigger, then smaller again, due to the atmosphere.

>>10162287
>if I accuse them of trolling then I'm automatically right
Can you explain what that video of the sun going behind hills proves? At least get a clear line of sight.

>>10162313
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRM47ah_vh8

It was to demonstrate that your high powered zoom was a low res gif that showed nothing

>>10162302
Why is the atmosphere shaped like that and not evenly distributed? Also, this image the horizon would look like pic related.

Or are you saying the air bends it? Why would the air bend the light rays like that? Your arc makes no sense, it would be a flat line

>>10162302
I still don't understand what that arc is.

>>10161982
>>10162064
What the hell moon faggots?

>>10162317
Can I get a zoom on that?

>>10162330
Sure

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

>>10161173
Imagine if a girl that looked like that loved you. Imagine if any attractive girl loved you.

>>10162332
Just to confirm, this is going down behind curvature, correct?

>>10162354
>Moving the goal posts

lmao

>>10162356
How am I moving the goal posts? You're the one not answering the question.

>>10161569
It is pretty clearly spherical, if you pay attention.

>>10161620
>we only see 49% of the moon, because that’s about the limit of how much of a sphere you can see

Except that over time, we see well over 50%. Which doesn't impact your point, but pedantic shit is important.

>>10162364
Because I just proved why your fucking sunset model makes zero sense and is supported by nothing, then you completely change the subject to talk about how the horizon "looks flat".

I don't want to bother even talking about that because I'll show you a million images, of why you're stupid, then you'll just switch to something else.

>>10161173
wow you are really fucking stupid.

>>10162378
>weirdly stitched together
>images taken using a curved lens
>random parts of the moon brighter than other parts, suggesting the the atmosphere is in the way
Source. NOW.

>>10162386
Erm no brainlet, I'm not talking about the horizon being flat. I want you to confirm that the sun is setting as you expect it would in the gif from a rotating earth.

>>10162391
>Weirdly stitched together

You know you can only have a full moon every lunar cycle, right? And the moon is at different sizes at different times of the year? This gif is a composite of several photos taken months, if not years apart. Having a smooth video would be impossible with a real camera, and deceptive if using a computer.

>Curved lens
What?

>random parts of the moon brighter than other parts, suggesting the the atmosphere is in the way

It's in different parts of the sky, so yes, atmosphere would potentially affect it. Notice it doesn't make it look like a funhouse moon, though.

Not that poster so I don't have source, but I see nothing wrong with it.

>>10162401
Yes, your gif is what I would expect. Sun falling beyond the horizon, and the slight bending due to reflection of the water creating a mirage like effect.

>>10162405
>And the moon is at different sizes at different times of the year?
Because it's local. It's not 230,000 miles away you lunatic.
>What?
Telescopes will make objects, particularly circular ones, more spherical due to the lenses they use.
>It's in different parts of the sky, so yes, atmosphere would potentially affect it.
Or the moon self illuminates.
>Not that poster so I don't have source, but I see nothing wrong with it.
Sauce. NOW.

>>10162407
Interesting. And what's going on here?

>>10162448
A small piece of the sky magnified 1000x experiencing slight atmosphere distortion due to being viewed through thousands of miles of air.

How do you explain the small hiccup that's almost unnoticeable compared to the entire bottom half of the sun disappearing completely?

>>10161204
The bright side (by which I assume you men the side that is lit up) always points towards the sun.

>>10162496
I'd need to see a longer sunset than that. It begins at a point where the atmosphere will already be messing with it. It's also odd that the horizon isn't at the centre of the frame.

>>10162507
>It's also odd that the horizon isn't at the centre of the frame.
Why is that weird? If I film the floor there's no horizon at all! Craziness!

>I'd need to see a longer sunset than that. It begins at a point where the atmosphere will already be messing with it.
What does that even mean? Longer sunset? The atmosphere messes with the sun all day long. You can't even make out the sun during daylight because of the glare.

>>10162502
Yes. Do we know the proper terms? Shits getting pretty goofy in here anyhow. Its cool

>>10161204
If you go to australia the moon is upside down

>10162368
Move that goalpost retarded boi.kek

>>10162532
?

Who are you replying to? What is the point of this picture?

That one

>>10162509
>Why is that weird? If I film the floor there's no horizon at all! Craziness!
Because it's a sunset, going (allegedly) "behind" the horizon which is at eye level.
>What does that even mean? Longer sunset? The atmosphere messes with the sun all day long. You can't even make out the sun during daylight because of the glare.
Because at some point the "sun" you are seeing is not the real sun, it is a refracted sun, you can notice this when the sun ceases to reflect off the ocean despite still being above the horizon.

>>10162517
Are you in Australia? Can you tell me which way it waxes and wanes?

>>10162428
>Because it's local.
It's not.
>Telescopes will make objects, particularly circular ones, more spherical due to the lenses they use.
>Telescopes will make [circular] objects ... more spherical due
I don't think you understand the difference between circular and spherical, and I don't believe you understand how retarded you are. We can check how much a lens distorts the image, so "it only looks circular because the lens is a circle" isn't a good argument on it's own. The artifacts of such distortion are pretty telling.
>Or the moon self illuminates.
And I guess it also casts shadows on itself. Two more thinigs you also need to remember is that when you look at a sphere you can't see a full half of the sphere and it's so fucking far away that the light reflected from it is incredibly dispersed, which is why it appears fairly evenly lit. It's like how if you look at the Sun's reflection in a puddle while you stand over it the reflection is roughly the size the Sun looks in the sky, and as you move further away (assuming you can keep the reflection angle) the size of the reflection remains the same (eclipsing the entire puddle eventually) but the brightness decreases (though you need large distances to see this well because water is really reflective).
>Source. NOW.
I couldn't find the source of that gif but I found a much smoother animation that shows the libration over the course of a month.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-faces-of-the-moon-398fbc85840d