/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11382993
no john you aream the sky

>>11383000
ok

>>11382993
The horizon is definitely created by curvature, yes.

>>11383098
So there's no other way the globe could have multiple observed horizons?

>>11383133
What does this even mean

>>11383133
Not sure what you mean. I observe one horizon that looks like a circle surrounding me.

>>11383335
>>11384787
You silly obese whores. Can the only way an observed "horizon" be created, be by curvature on a globe? Atmospheric effects or perspective, for example, can't create a horizon on a globe?

Learn to communicate.

>>11385302
You utter, utter, utter moron. In webm related, where is the horizon? The horizon being the curvature of the earth intersecting with the apparent sky.

>le covert flat earth thread

>>11385316
Keep your thoughts to yourself gay boy.

>>11383133
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but maybe this is what you mean. The horizon you see on Earth may appear differently as the one you see in space. You are looking through two different mediums. The terrestrial horizon viewed from Earth is displayed through layers of air and dust that distort the colors, size, and shape of objects. When the sun sets, it appears larger and changes the color of the sky dramatically as it approaches the horizon.

>>11385330
Yes, you're on the right track, globecuck. But ignoring atmospheric effects caused by looking through a gaseous medium, what about perspective on a globe?

Pic related is a perspective grid, could that create a horizon on a globe?

>>11385298
>Atmospheric effects
You'll need a transition of light from a material to another with a different refraction index. Air is full of those but these create distortions in all directions blurring the image. An illusion of curvature that actually isn't there needs a uniform lensing effect. There isn't any if you look in a direction parallel to the ground.

>>11385339
no

>>11385342
So what's causing this illusion of curvature?

>>11385354
Uhmm, the fluttering bridge?

>>11385348
How so, globecuck?

>>11385339
>But ignoring atmospheric effects caused by looking through a gaseous mediu
It's not atmospheric effects. The Earth is curved, and therefore takes a shape of a lens as the sun approaches the horizon increasing the appearance of its size. The dust and air only cause the change in hues. You are looking through more dust at a distance when your eyes focus on the horizon.

>>11385356
>fluttering
Excuse me?

>>11385357
because that doesnt make any physical sense at all. thanks for confirming this was just another flat earth thread, btw. enjoy your final (You) from me.

>>11385360
Can you explain this sunrise?

>>11385363
Okay, goodbye globecuck.

>>11385369
Looks like a normal sunrise with a mirage effect. Even in flat Earth theory, mirages exist. The air between what you're looking at creates visual distortion.

>>11385375
>The air between what you're looking at creates visual distortion.
Correct, globecuck - but knowing this, how can you be so sure that the horizon you observe is actually "real", in the sense it is the result of curvature intersecting with the sky, when there are potentially optical illusions at play?

>>11385369
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)

>>11385381
>how can you be so sure that the horizon you observe is actually "real"
If we are discussion reality, it is perception that creates reality. If one cannot perceive the horizon, like the blind, it is difficult to envision such a concept.
>in the sense it is the result of curvature intersecting with the sky
Well that's simple. Just go there. If you continually move towards the horizon to visit the point of the horizon you were viewing, you will eventually circumnavigate the globe.

>>11385383
Thank you, globecuck. Can you explain how the sun didn't appear from bottom up?

>>11385388
can you read the fucking article that explains precisely this phenomenon, retard?

>bumping garbage
>giving obvious trolls (You)s

>>11385387
>If we are discussion reality, it is perception that creates reality. If one cannot perceive the horizon, like the blind, it is difficult to envision such a concept.
Yes globecuck, but doesn't perception include perspective? Can you explain how "perspective" works on a globe? By "perspective", I mean pic related.
>Well that's simple. Just go there. If you continually move towards the horizon to visit the point of the horizon you were viewing, you will eventually circumnavigate the globe.
But globecuck, you can't actually "go" to the horizon, because it's always out of reach?

>>11385392
No I can't globecuck, please can you educate me.

>>11385398
>bumping garbage
Fuck you, this is real science. Get out you nihilist.
>giving obvious trolls (You)s
Fuck you, I'm much more than a troll.

>>11385400
>Can you explain how "perspective" works on a globe? By "perspective", I mean pic related.
Sure thing. See the arches formed by the lighting? At a distance, the rounded beams of light appear straight lines. If you were to walk up to them though, you know they are round.

>>11382993
You poor, uneducated, stubborn fool,

It is with great interest that I must inform you that both your logic and your reasoning are flawed, and that you are obviously misinformed about the topic in hand. To be honest, you represent the small part of every community which lack the ability to think and comprehend things like humas do. In fact, your mental capabilities would closely resemble that of a lump of turd. I had second thoughts writing this, as I am not sure if you have the skills associated with reading. I kindly ask you, on
behalf of everyone else, to kill yourself, thereby removing yourself from the gene pool to prevent people like you from being born.
You have permission to writhe in your own idiocy.

Sincerely,
Your intellectual superior.

>tfw you realise pastas seem normal answers when addressed to flatards

>>11385425
>See the arches formed by the lighting?
That's not what I'm talking about globecuck, but nice try. Pic related is what I'm talking about - can you see how perspective could create an apparent horizon with a wide enough field of view and enough distance?

>>11385440
I just proved to you round things look flat at a distance. Even your perfectly flat, man-made domicile proves the Earth is round. Get good scrub.

>>11385437
>like humas do
>humas
>your mental capabilities would closely resemble that of a lump of turd
>Your intellectual superior
>humas
You utter, utter, utter fraud of the highest order. You cannot even spell correctly, and you claim to be my intellectual superior? Kindly dispose of yourself in the nearest gas chamber, forthwith. I don't want to bear witness to your pathetic tripe for another moment.

>>11385440
Prove to me the Earth is flat using this image.

>>11385444
What on earth are you babbling about, globecuck? Can you provide a diagram of perspective on a globe?

lol if the earth is a sphere why do rockets go sideways when going in "orbit"

>>11385448
Very clever, globecuck. Is the surface the mountains are protruding from, flat or curved?

>>11385451
>Can you provide a diagram of perspective on a globe?
Get good twice you double scrub.

>>11385451
>globe
What do you mean brainlet? The Earth is a giant rock. It's not flat.

>>11385457
Erm globecuck, this is getting pathetic, as expected. Pic related is a perspective grid on a flat earth, what do you have on a globe?

>>11385462
Draw a perspective grid on a GLOBE, GLOBEKEK!

>>11385311
The true horizon is in the middle of the mirage.

>>11385357
Because perspective doesn't obscure anything. You can zoom in and see everything in front of you. On a clear day, a boat will be obscured by the horizon no matter how much you zoom in.

>>11385472
So there is a fake horizon? What's causing it?

>>11385479
>Because perspective doesn't obscure anything
But what about the tests that prove this wrong?

>>11385440
Your picture doesn't create a horizon though. You would need infinite distance to create a horizon via perspective, yet what you see on the actual horizon can be reached in a finite distance. This proves the Earth is round. You can clearly see this distinction when you observe a ship going under the horizon. It does not get infinitely smaller until it disappears. Its width remains wide enough to see while it's height decreases much faster to 0.

>>11385466
The only difference is that the "vanishing point" is a finite distance away and appears slightly lower than eye level on a round earth. On a flat earth, it's an infinite distance away, which is physically impossible.

>>11385480
The mirage which you can clearly see. Look at a video of ships on a clear day.

>>11385494
>Your picture doesn't create a horizon though. You would need infinite distance to create a horizon via perspective
Erm globecuck, this is false. Our eyes, and cameras, have a resolution limit, therefore you do not need an "infinite distance" for a horizon to form through perspective. In 3D applications, you can create a horizon on a flat surface, but it's not an infinite distance, that would be impossible as you'd need infinite computing power.

>>11385481
What tests? You don't even need one to see that by definition perspective doesn't obscure anything. It only makes things appear smaller.

>>11385498
>he only difference is that the "vanishing point" is a finite distance away
How far is the distance, globecuck?

>>11385501
So the "real horizon" is part of a mirage?

>>11385505
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqKSj5pkyzg

>>11385504
>Erm globecuck, this is false. Our eyes, and cameras, have a resolution limit
The resolution of simple telescopes or cameras are more than fine enough to observe any object going under the horizon without shrinking, since the horizon is not that far away due to the curvature of the Earth. On a flat Earth on the other hand, you would never be able to observe that. Thank you for proving ther Earth is round.

>>11385506
About 3 miles for a person of average height standing at sea level.

>>11385507
No, the real horizon is obscured by a mirage in that video you posted. On a clear day you can see the horizon without such distortion. Why are you cherrypicking videos with mirages?

>>11385511
I can't watch videos right now, explain the test.

>>11385513
Excuse me globecuck, you're ignoring this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqKSj5pkyzg

>>11385514
So pretty much the exact same as curvature distance?

>>11385527
See >>11385524

>>11385518
How do you know the "real horizon" is not obscured during a "clear day"?

>>11382993
looks like it

>>11385531
What is curvature distance?

>>11385537
Because then it wouldn't be a clear day. Do you think mirages just happen on their own?

>>11385534
>>11385524
Pic related, globecuck.

>>11385539
>What is curvature distance?
About 3 miles for a person of average height standing at sea level.

>>11385538
Sure kid.
>Because then it wouldn't be a clear day. Do you think mirages just happen on their own?
Mirages will happen on "clear days", just at a further distance.

>>11385556
>>11385543

>>11385546
The bottom picture is taken from below the table surface. That represents curvature, not a flat earth. Again, it's a clear proof of round Earth: on a round Earth you can zoom far enough to see objects 3 miles away, yet they still disappear from the bottom up. On a flat Earth this cannot occur. Zooming in 3 miles will make the entire object visible, because there is nothing actually obscuring it. Making things smaller does not obscure them. Explain what obscures it or admit the Earth is round. Your choice.

>>11385556
>Mirages will happen on "clear days", just at a further distance.
How?

>>11385562
>The bottom picture is taken from below the table surface
Exactly why you should have watched the video, globecuck. Are you disabled or something? Pic related is after zooming into the coin at the same camera height. Explain how the whole coin is visible again.

>>11385563
Because of the nature of air, and the evaporating/mirroring water from the sea.

>>11385471
>Draw lines on a rock
Why?

>>11385567
He moved the camera up when he zoomed. If you understand perspective then you should be able to easily understand how the bottom picture cannot be at the level of the table surface. Draw a line from the middle of the coin to the table edge and it slopes down. This means the camera is below the table. You can't explain the result because it's fake.

>>11385568
>Because of the nature of air, and the evaporating/mirroring water from the sea.
That's not an explanation. On a flat Earth, looking at the horizon at eye level, your line of sight travels through air all at the same height above the ocean. A mirage is caused by going through different layers of air at different densities. So on a clear day there can be no mirage on a flat earth.

>>11385572
Heh, you think you're on a "rock"? Anyway, what's wrong globecuck? Can't produce a diagram of perspective on a globe? I wonder why...

>>11385579
>globecuck
Why do you keep lumping me in with brainlet's like globalists and flat earthists? The Earth is giant rock in space. It doesn't conform to perfect geometric shapes. You have to be below 100 IQ to believe otherwise.

>>11385575
>He moved the camera up when he zoomed.
Absolutely not brainlet, watch the damn video you disgusting whore. If you understand perspective, you understand angular resolution, if you understand angular resolution, you understand diffraction limit. Problem is, you don't understand any of these things.

>>11385579
Here's the diagram >>11385466 except instead of vanishing point it says 3 miles.

>>11385582
>The Earth is giant rock in space
That's exactly why I'm lumping you in with brainlets.
>It doesn't conform to perfect geometric shapes. You have to be below 100 IQ to believe otherwise.
I don't give a shit, brainlet. Your model is utterly retarded.

>>11385586
So there's no "vanishing point" on a globe?

>>11385584
Yet you still fail to explain how resolution causes the coin to disappear bottom up. So clearly it's you who doesn't understand.

Not to mention that the video completely fails to address my point. My point is that even if you zoom in 3 miles to make the image as large as it was when it was next to you, you will still see it disappear below the horizon, while the video shows the entire object zoomed in.

>>11385584
you can do the "experiment" at home and see for yourself that you are a retarded shiteating transgender cocksucking faggot. go ahead and do it.

>>11385597
Erm brainlet, you have still failed to explain how perspective works on a globe. Once you explain this, I can then explain your retarded questions.

>>11385595
Depends what you mean. A vanishing point is the point at infinity where two parallel straight lines appear to meet. But lines that follow the curvature of the Earth aren't straight. Certainly you can have straight lines that don't follow the curvature of the Earth, or curved lines that appear straight without zooming in.

>>11385604
>Erm brainlet, you have still failed to explain how perspective works on a globe.
I did, right here: >>11385498

Now answer the question or admit the Earth is round.

>>11385598
Fuck you, you trans shithead. You haven't experimented anything, have you? You fucking schizophrenic weasel. Fraudulent cunt.

>>11385590
>I don't give a shit, brainlet. Your model is utterly retarded.
My model is 1:1 with reality. There is no reason for the Earth-rock to confirm to perfect geometric shapes. Any flat, man-made surface eventually cracks and returns to it's original rocky shape if left alone.

>>11385606
>A vanishing point is the point at infinity where two parallel straight lines appear to meet
A point at infinity? There's no such thing is there you fraud? Are our eyes infinite in nature? No!

>>11385604
Oh and here are several pictures showing the horizon is not at eye level: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/water-level-showing-mountain-and-horizon-dip-due-to-curvature.9203/

This cannot occur on a flat earth. Perspective dictates the vanishing point is always at eye level. Yet again you've proven the Earth isn't flat.

>>11385612
Jesus Christ, globecuck, I've already asked this. How far away is the vanishing point on a globe, globecuck? Don't make me ask again.

>>11385615
Oh really, globecuck? Where are your empirical measurements of oblate spheroidness then, you horrendous weasel?

>>11385618
That's irrelevant. No matter how much you zoom in, the vanishing point will always be farther away. But you can zoom into the horizon such that objects there appear as large as they would standing next to them. Thus the horizon is not a vanishing point.

You can also easily see the horizon is not at eye level, while the vanishing point would be. You lose.

>>11385625
>Flatlet referring me to a globecuck, when I clearly disavow the childish notion that the Earth must conform to perfect geometric shapes
Opinion discarded

>>11385619
>It doesn't conform to perfect geometric shapes. You have to be below 100 IQ to believe otherwise.
Heh, Jesus Christ globecuck - have you been ignoring the entire thread? There's no proof the observed "horizon" is the "real" horizon created by "curvature".

>>11385621
>How far away is the vanishing point on a globe, globecuck?
What vanishing point? The horizon is not a vanishing point and is 3 miles away.

>Don't make me ask again.
You never asked this.

Since you didn't answer the question, you admitted the Earth is round. Thanks.

>>11385629
What do you mean by "zoom in", globecuck?

>>11385634
Too bad you failed to explain what causes the observed horizon to be distorted without mirages and already admitted the Earth is round.

>>11385632
Are you an oblate spheroidian?

>>11385636
>What vanishing point? The horizon is not a vanishing point and is 3 miles away.
The "vanishing point" created by "perspective", you silly nonce!
>Since you didn't answer the question, you admitted the Earth is round. Thanks.
Wow, how desperate do you have to be? The earth ain't a fucking spinning spheroid you fucking gullible schizo!

>>11385640
Increase the focal length of your viewing instrument.

>>11385647
>The "vanishing point" created by "perspective", you silly nonce!
I already answered this, it's infinitely far away.

And yet again you fail to answer my question, once again admitting the Earth is round. Please keep on posting and affirming your admittal.

>>11385642
Silly imbecile. I can't believe you think the "horizon" is created by curvature and nothing else. Holy shit you're fucking retarded.

>>11385649
So increasing focal length allows you to see behind curvature?

>>11385657
>I can't believe
Not an argument, you lose.

>>11385659
No that's the exact opposite of what I said. And that's exactly how you know it's curvature and not perspective.

>>11385662
>Not an argument, you lose.
Amazing how you ignore the actual argument - pathetic!
>No that's the exact opposite of what I said. And that's exactly how you know it's curvature and not perspective.
Silly globecuck - you're just making shit up now.

>>11385674
>Amazing how you ignore the actual argument - pathetic!
What argument?

>Silly globecuck - you're just making shit up now.
How is it different from anything I said above?

And once again you fail to answer my question, admitting the earth is round. Thanks!

>112 replies
>13 posters

Imagine wasting your life arguing with someone who thinks the Earth is flat on an anime forum.

>>11385698
>What argument?
Do you realise that there are globecucks who male the argument that the apparent "horizon" is not the curvature of the earth? Example debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptaetmagf4k

>>11385702
It's called a debate - try one some time you pathetic whore.

>>11385709
If the earth is flat, I'm not wasting my life you fucking shit weasel.

>>11385715
Again, I can't watch videos right now, but simply saying you don't believe something is not an argument.

>>11385298
>>11385722
>argues the earth is flat for three hours straight
>not pathetic

>>11385722
If bachelors aren't single then pigs can fly.

>>11385723
Pathetic globecuck - learn how to watch videos.

>>11385728
I bet I have a better job than you, you insufferable globecuck.

>>11385731
Globecucks will be single forever.

>>11385369
The heat rising from the earth is distorting the light between you and it, fucktard

>>11385748
Why doesn't the sun appear bottom up, fucktard?

>>11385567
>Camera is intially focussed to the front of the table
>Pushes coin out of focus
>Small object disappears when it’s out of focus
>Zooms in on coin, bringing it back into focus
>Coin reappears
Find a way to make an object disappear in the same way when the focus is kept on it. Ships dip below the horizon when they are still in focus with detailed resolution, which is not what happens in that video.

>>11385736
>>11385744
Still no argument. Thanks for admitting the earth is round again.

>>11385753
>>11385765
Watch a debate between a flat earther and a globecuck - the globecuck gets destroyed: https://youtu.be/ptaetmagf4k

>>11385504
Go measure the distance to the horizon.
It's easy, just find an landmark that is on or partially below the horizon and use a map to work out how far away it is.
The figure you will get (on flat ground at sea level) is about 4.5 km, with the distance increasing the higher up you are.
Now, if we take this into account, several questions with your "eye resolution" theory arise.

1: why is it that your maximum eye resolution allows you to see only 4.5km away at sea level, but let's you see significantly further if you climb a tree?
2: if people's maximum eye resolution prevents them from seeing further than the horizon, how are they able to see objects in space such as the sun, the moon, the planets, the stars and satellites/meteors?
3: what alternative explanation does your theory provide for the fact that the distance you measured to the horizon matches up perfectly in all cases with the distance to the horizon you would get if you calculated it for a globe the size of the earth?

Please answer these questions if you want to be taken seriously

>>11385311
ship shrinks in relation to the close-by waves

>>11385835
>watch a video
Not an argument. Do you have any original thoughts?