/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11093118
*observes the sun set*

>>11093118

>>11093123
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5M7vdrBrZc

>>11093130
Not how perspective works

>>11093138
Explain why the coin disappears and becomes resolvable again after zooming in.

>>11093141
Because of the nature of how open shutter digital cameras work

>>11093144
Explain.

>>11093130
Perspective doesn't work like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qp8jqcihc

>>11093150
Explain why the coin disappeared and then reappeared after zooming in.

>>11093165
Seems like most of it is due to the camera being focused in such a way that the table blurring out due to it not being in focus blocks the view of the coin, which is then rectified when the zoom is increased. The camera also seems like it's very slightly below the top of the table so that could contribute to the effect.

Also, perspective can't explain how the sun sets because from the description of perspective given by that video, how far away something can be seen is due to the level of zoom, angular resolution, and the line-of-sight distance from an object to an observer. However, this doesn't explain the phenomena of being able to see the sunset multiple times by increasing one's height. This makes sense on a round Earth as the lower the height is the more of the Earth's curvature blocks the Sun.

And this talk about perspective ignores the myriad of other problems the Flat Earth model fails to explain like in >>11093129.

Time is absolute.

>>11093190
>Seems like most of it is due to the camera being focused in such a way that the table blurring out due to it not being in focus blocks the view of the coin
So the "blur" as you call it isn't caused by angular resolution?
>The camera also seems like it's very slightly below the top of the table so that could contribute to the effect.
How can the bottom of the coin be visible after zooming if that was the case?
>Also, perspective can't explain how the sun sets because from the description of perspective given by that video, how far away something can be seen is due to the level of zoom, angular resolution, and the line-of-sight distance from an object to an observer. However, this doesn't explain the phenomena of being able to see the sunset multiple times by increasing one's height.
Increasing one's height increases one's angular resolution, so it does make sense.

>>11093118
lunar eclipses

>>11093226
>Increasing one's height increases one's angular resolution
How?

earth is flat time is cube

>>11093118
Provide evidence for your claim.

>>11093242
No.
You have to prove me wrong.
That's how science works.

>>11093254
OP made the claim that the Earth is flat first. He needs to prove his position and present his argument first.

>>11093233
When you observe the sun appearing to disappear, like that coin does, you are observing the diffraction limit of your eyes being able to resolve it as you are too close to the ground. If you increase your height, you will have an increased angle of view, therefore a greater diffraction limit.

>>11093273
>you are observing the diffraction limit of your eyes being able to resolve it as you are too close to the ground.
How does the ground affect how well I can see something? What processes happen which causes this? What other effects does this have that could be tested for?

>>11093282
>How does the ground affect how well I can see something? What processes happen which causes this?
It's simply how perspective works. Perspective forces whatever is above your eye level to go downwards towards eye level, and forces whatever is below eye level to go up towards your eye level.

The closer you are to the ground, the narrower your viewing angle of the ground in the distance becomes. Would you agree you can see more surface area of the sky than you can of the ground, when standing on the ground?

>>11093254
Not a very good troll.

>>11093322
>It's simply how perspective works. Perspective forces whatever is above your eye level to go downwards towards eye level, and forces whatever is below eye level to go up towards your eye level.
But how does "perspective" forces change what's seen? What's exactly happening to the image? How can this be modeled mathematically? And again, what other effects does this have?

Actual perspective is defined by the axioms of geometry. How it behaves is explained by mathematical formulas which can be used to predict it's effects. The version of perspective as presented by flat Earther's don't make any predictions, don't have any mathematical nor physical groundwork behind it, and is completely useless in understanding how the world works.

And this argument over perspective ignores the mountains of evidence against the Earth being flat. So even if I grant you that this grant you this poor explanation of how a Sun can set on a flat Earth while still being above it, there's still many other things that the flat Earth model fails to explain. This >>11093129 is a pretty good list of the things that falsify the flat Earth notion.

>>11093379
>But how does "perspective" forces change what's seen? What's exactly happening to the image?
Perspective is simply the result of our eye balls absorbing light towards (what appears to be) a central line of infinite convergence (infinite because spherical shape of the eyes has infinite angles).
>Actual perspective is defined by the axioms of geometry. How it behaves is explained by mathematical formulas which can be used to predict it's effects.
The perspective used by oblate sphererodians doesn't factor in diffraction limits or angular resolutions, instead they use curvature in their places.
>This >>11093129 is a pretty good list of the things that falsify the flat Earth notion.
Pick one.

>>11093464
Perspective would make the sun appear to get smaller or larger as it moves further away or gets closer to the viewer. The sun doesn't change apparent size, it sinks below the horizon. Perspective doesn't explain anything.

>>11093464
>Perspective is simply the result of our eye balls absorbing light towards (what appears to be) a central line of infinite convergence (infinite because spherical shape of the eyes has infinite angles).
Then explain why there's a preferred direction of this "perspective". Present a mathematical model which describes how far out someone should see something on Earth.

>The perspective used by oblate sphererodians doesn't factor in diffraction limits or angular resolutions
Because perspective is something that arose from geometry and thus angular resolution is irrelevant.

>instead they use curvature in their places.
False. Perspective says nothing about curvature.

>Pick one.
Fair enough, I'll pick what I believe is among the strongest ones (although this doesn't mean that the other points are false), all of spaceflight. In it's applications, what is observed in space, it's history, and what engineering goes into it, spaceflight as we know it would be impossible on a flat Earth. You can't just hand-wave it all away into a conspiracy theory because such a conspiracy would require too many people to be in on it.

>>11093520
That would be correct if we're to use the sun from your globe model and just shrink it down and move it closer.

It is not clear what the sun actually is, so to make any statements regarding its "size" doesn't mean much. It is clear that the air has a big impact on the sun's light, to the point that the globe model states that the sun during sunrise/sunset isn't the real sun, rather a projection due to atmospheric refraction.

>>11093578
>It is not clear what the sun actually is
It is clear if you actually bother to look it up. The Sun is a ball of hydrogen that is undergoing fusion due to it's own gravity. This has been a well studied topic for years.

>so to make any statements regarding its "size" doesn't mean much
The only reason why the Sun's size "doesn't mean much" to the flat Earth model is that the Sun would need to be different sizes to different observers simultaneously in order to match the observation that the Sun's angular diameter is constant throughout the day.

>It is clear that the air has a big impact on the sun's light
Yes. Especially at sunrise and sunset when the Sun's light has to pass through a significant amount of the atmosphere which filters out the light shifting the spectrum towards red.

>to the point that the globe model states that the sun during sunrise/sunset isn't the real sun, rather a projection due to atmospheric refraction.
No. I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

>bumping flat earth threads

Why do we see different stars and constelations depending on where we are located on Earth (Nothern hemisphere vs Souther hemisphere)?

>>11093636
>something something perspective

>>11093638
I have an even better one.
>personal dome
Yes, the universe conjures a fake dome over you to fool you into believing that the Earth is round.

>>11093130
okay, now how are you going to crouch under the earth, dummy?

Guys, guys. Let’s compromise here. We can just use the Euler Lagrange equations to write the equivalent laws of motion for a coordinate system/reference frame where the earth is flat, and there, the earth is flat. I mean, sure, the equations are much simpler in a reference frame with a round earth, but this is merely a notational convenience. All the resulting special distortions, unusual geometries, and fictitious forces and epicycles are quite real, I assure you.

It was only a few years ago that I made the flat earth theory relevant again and I don't even believe in it.

>>11093708
Its more deluded to think you started the flat earth movement than to believe in flat earth

>>11093536
>Then explain why there's a preferred direction of this "perspective".
What preferred direction is that? If you mean the center of our vision, then that's simply because it's the convergence point of the light into our eyes, I wouldn't be surprised if the eye attracts light to its center like some kind of magnet.
>Because perspective is something that arose from geometry and thus angular resolution is irrelevant.
That doesn't make it correct - if you want to model perspective as accurately as possible, then you need to factor everything in.
>False. Perspective says nothing about curvature.
It is claimed that perspective cannot explain objects disappearing bottom up at distance, hence curvature must be included.
>Fair enough, I'll pick what I believe is among the strongest ones (although this doesn't mean that the other points are false), all of spaceflight. In it's applications, what is observed in space, it's history, and what engineering goes into it, spaceflight as we know it would be impossible on a flat Earth. You can't just hand-wave it all away into a conspiracy theory because such a conspiracy would require too many people to be in on it.
But aren't you hand-waving away the possibility of a conspiracy due an assumption that it would take too many people? I think spaceflight (or the lack of it) actually shows something is being hidden. The tech hasn't developed any where near fast enough since the supposed moon landings - it's been the same old nonsense with people playing guitars on the ISS and sending rovers to other planets that do nothing of worth.

>>11093622
>The Sun is a ball of hydrogen that is undergoing fusion due to it's own gravity. This has been a well studied topic for years.
In your model it is that - but it's pretty retarded when you think about it since gases in a vacuum would never be able to form a sphere from their own mass. Gases equilibrate in a vacuum.
>The only reason why the Sun's size "doesn't mean much" to the flat Earth model is that the Sun would need to be different sizes to different observers simultaneously in order to match the observation that the Sun's angular diameter is constant throughout the day.
Again, you're using the globe model's story of what the sun is. Does a rainbow have an angular size that changes with distance?
>Yes. Especially at sunrise and sunset when the Sun's light has to pass through a significant amount of the atmosphere which filters out the light shifting the spectrum towards red.
Does it not also change its apparent "size"?
>No. I'm pretty sure you just made that up.
It's called advanced sunrise and delayed sunset - apologise.

>>11093789
>Gases equilibrate in a vacuum.
...except for when the gravitational force dominates like in the case of the sun

>>11093636
Same reason you'll see different land below you on a plane depending on where you are.

>>11093656
It's not under the earth because the bottom of the coin can be seen when zoomed in.

>>11093793
The gravitational force of what? Helium and hydrogen?

>>11093808
You can see the edge of the table, you mouthbreathing worm.

>>11093118
>flat
No the earth is a triangle supported on the back of a cosmic sized pig. Prove me wrong.

>>11093754
>Its
It's more deluded to deny that I didn't bring back relevancy than to think that flat Earth is real also familiar post there

>>11093754
Normally it would be but you are wrong so guess not

>>11093861
familiar

>>11093865
familiar again lol

>>11093824
Yes

>>11093826
Doesn't matter curvecuck, the centre of the lens is above the surface of the table. What's causing the coin to disappear?

>>11093912
The edge of the fucking table. Its too bad the earth isn’t flat because I’d invite uou to walk right off the edge and try to replicate this experiment. I also sincerely hope flat earth is all part of some surreptitious govt eugenics program.

>>11093118
Mars is flatter.

>>11093872
So gases in a vacuum can behave like solids in a vacuum? How did your sun form?

>>11093951
...what? The gravotational forces of the molecules on each other pulls them together. It's still gas and plasma.

>>11093926
Why does the coin come back into view when zoomed in spheroid autist?

>>11093963
Because the sensor of the camera can only resolve the image of something that occupies a certain amount of angle of view. The zoom of the lens increases this angle.

>>11093963
Does it matter? Is it relevant until he demonstrates the same thing with the camera lens completely over the table?

>>11093954
Explain how helium and hydrogen would form into a sphere rather than equilibrate with the vacuum, or be gravitationally attracted to solids?

I don't understand how gas molecules could be both attracted to each other, but also want to naturally separate from each other in order to form a sphere.

>>11093968
>Because the sensor of the camera can only resolve the image of something that occupies a certain angle of view
So why can't the same logic be applied to our eyes when observing objects appearing to disappear behind something?

>>11094029
You'd need a much bigger table for that, but the same thing would happen once the diffraction limit of the camera is reached.

>>11094032
>he doesn't know that all matter is atomic structures in different configurations
>he doesn't know about nuclear mass, gravity and the properties of space/time
Dude, probably go back and do high school again.

>>11094066
What would happen if you emptied a jar of helium and hydrogen in a very empty area of space and then disappeared so your own gravity doesn't effect the gases?

>>11094032
Because gravity was already there and the mass is just proportional to the relative gravity, duh.

>>11094119
Explain what would happen in this scenario >>11094099

>>11093118
>unicorns live in Uranus
>prove me wrong

>>11093951
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

>>11094165
>a jar
Nothing because the gravitational force is too weak at this scale. The gas would disperse.

>>11094038
No because our eyes dont work anything like that

>>11094220
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
Retarded.
>>11094226
If it would disperse at this scale, it would disperse at all scales since even though gravitational attraction is stronger, so is the pressure differentiation with the vacuum that causes the dispersal. This will always be stronger than gravitational attraction.

>>11094229
So our eyes don't have an angular resolution limit?

Fundamental education and knowledge are being completely destroyed.

>>11094165
Depends when the gas was dispersed, at the big bang it would go to the nearest gravity pocket I described. Right now, if that matter were released it would have a gravitationally relative weighted distribution faster than light speed and destroy the universe, obviously

>>11094277
Eyes dont have pixels, no

>>11094273
>>>11094226 (You) #
>If it would disperse at this scale, it would disperse at all scales since even though gravitational attraction is stronger, so is the pressure differentiation with the vacuum that causes the dispersal
All of what you>>11094344
said is incorrect

I refuse to believe that there are any real flat-earthers, they are all Poe's.

>>11094335
cringe

>>11093118
The earth is round.
Prove me wrong.

Done.

>>11094344
>it would go to the nearest gravity pocket
Meaningless hogwash.

>>11094363

>>11094403
wat

>>11094404
Not sure what's so surprising about the eye having an angular resolution limit.

>>11094403
Thank you for doing nothing to support your point.

>>11094431
My point is that the oblate spheroidians in this thread have stated the coin disappears due to the angular resolution limit of the camera.

The eye also has an angular resolution limit, which is why a flat earth can explain things disappearing behind the apparent horizon.

>>11094458
>the oblate spheroidians in this thread have stated the coin disappears due to the angular resolution limit of the camera.
That's not what I said. The sensor on the camera has a discrete threshold for which a small enough solid angle will not be picked up.
i.e. PIXELS. This does not apply to the human eye.

Btw, why doesnt the sun shrink in the sky when it moves away from us? Why does it dip below the horizon instead of just going infinitely close?

The earth is shaped like an egg.

>>11094469
>That's not what I said. The sensor on the camera has a discrete threshold for which a small enough solid angle will not be picked up.
>i.e. PIXELS. This does not apply to the human eye.
Pixels have nothing to do with it in this case - it's about aperture size, as well as the angle and distance of the objects close together (i.e coin and table).

The exact same applies to the human eye.

>>11093226
>Increasing one's height increases one's angular resolution, so it does make sense.
Alas, your sentence doesn't. Height has nothing to do with angular resolution. Learn terminology.

Why is a shit-tier thread like this allowed back on sci?

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers who regularly post to 4Chan: the rare prankster intellectuals who challenge your knowledge and debate skills (they will call your errors), the occasional literal Bible interpreters (they tend towards sanctimony), and far and away the most proliferate: the juvenile-level troller (they routinely claim you're stupid, yet respond with exasperatingly flawed memes and blather).

None of them provide any evidence of phenomena that *require* a flat Earth model to explain, but rather place the onus on you to prove the round Earth (again, and again, and again, ...) while belligerantly disavowing or ignoring any science or proofs put forward. They will post memes that ostensibly 'prove' some flaw in the round Earth model, but containing geometry, maths, logic, and facts so absurdly wrong that you are compelled to display your superior intelligence and knowledge. By responding, you've taken bait.

They don't care whether the Earth is flat or round. Your posts are met with insulting responses or more made-up nonsense, because the game is all about the lulz from getting you to spend time responding. They will provoke you with the classic, "If you don't respond, you prove me right." If you reference web-based information (that they could have looked up, had they interest) they will accuse you of being a shill for a conspiracy.

It is simply impossible to keep pace with their barrage of flaws, and the anonymous mask of 4Chan removes culpability and enables the prankster. Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>11094581
>Height has nothing to do with angular resolution.
It does when it comes to an object on top of a surface.

The object will become blocked by the surface the closer the observer is to the surface due to narrower angles of view. If the observer gains height, the angles of view widens between the surface and the object, allowing for increased angular resolution.

call a friend you trust that lives or is vacationing 1000 miles east or west talk till the sun sets.

>>11093130
Are people really this fucking stupid?