/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8906476
>earth is flat
score 1 point

>>8906478
I'm not saying the earth is flat, I'm saying I'm sick of being lied to with CGI images.

The size of the countries, the color of the land, the color of the ocean keeps changing in every image they release

wtf are they doing

>>8906476
>Just show me a real image of earth

>>8906476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble

>>8906476

>>8906505
Did you not read my post you turban, you just posted the exact thing I described I didn't want to see

and if that is an actual photo of earth, how come every year NASA puts out an image of earth it changes so drastically?

They are not photographs.

>>8906505
Pretty fucking weird how much the earth changes in these "photographs"

right? it's almost as if they are computer generated or something

>>8906511
That could be anything, but I prefer that image to the CGI bullshit they feed us

>>8906519
>>8906521
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc

live stream

inb4 fake conspiracy lenses and other generally retarded sentiments.

>>8906527
I watched that earlier, there was a moment where the sky was clear, practically no clouds, the feed cut for literally 1 second, the screen went grey, it came back and the earth was full of clouds

So the stream is bullshit

Either it's CGI or they are lying about it being a live feed, either way I no longer care or trust it

If you go back far enough in the comments, maybe an hour ago, you'll see my comment, search "suspicious" in the chat

>>8906529
I apologize, I should have let my first post >>8906478 be my last post

every time I try to actually explain things to you people it never works.

>>8906532
So what is the answer

they are either lying about it being a live feed or it's CGI

There is no other explanation

and like I said, my comment from an hour ago should be there, I'm not just making it up

The only thing flat earth wise I don't get is. What is the purpose of it? Does it really matter if it is flat or round?

>>8906535
I think the real point is more about trying to expose fake knowledge?

>>8906535
I think it's like climate change, we reached a point due to bad science that it is was accepted as fact, it's "common sense" that global warming is happening. Except it's not.

It's easier for the scientific community to keep the charade going and/or turn a blind eye, than to admit they were wrong.

Anyone who denies climate change gets dismissed and ridiculed. How the fuck could scientists now come out and deny that it's happening/humans caused it? They created the stigma of denying climate change, if they realised their numbers were wrong, they are stuck.

>>8906529
From video description.
>THIS WILL SHOW LIVE and PRE-RECORDED FOOTAGE -
As the Space Station passes into a period of night every 45 mins video is unavailable - during this time, and other breaks in transmission, recorded footage is shown .
>When back in daylight the live stream of earth will recommence
Congrats on unironically being illiterate.

>>8906556
How convenient

>>8906476

>>8906562
CGI

>>8906556
A live stream of 10% of the planet isn't what I'm asking for.

I want a real image of earth so I can look and see it for how it really looks. The size of continents keep changing in every single image NASA releases of earth.

Does that not bother anyone else?

>>8906566
>I want a real image of earth so I can look and see it for how it really looks.

Here you go: >>8906562

NASA also alter images of Mars to make it appear more red. Even if there isn't a wacky conspiracy theory explanation it's still annoying.

>>8906476
Of all the weak, retarded arguments you flat-earth monkeys come up with, this is the weakest.
>Show me a photo
>No not that photo, a different one
>No not that photo, a different different one.

You and every other dipshit troll please castrate yourselves and have the decency to never procreate.

>>8906598
When the photos you guys post vary so drastically how can I take you seriously?

I'm not a flat earther, it just frustrates me that NASA is releasing blatantly fake images.

In one image North America is 15% bigger than a previous image they released, does that not annoy you?

I one image everything is very vibrant, dark blues and bright green, in another it looks pale

This is our planet, is it really too much to ask for an photograph of it? Not one someone has altered to make more pretty, or one someone has spliced together and completely changed the size of continents?

I curse the day the Alex Jones' InfoWars crowd found out about 4chan.

Congrats sir, you win the prize of the most retarded post today!

>>8906609

>When the photos you guys post vary so drastically how can I take you seriously?

Different cameras, exposures, positions, speeds, lenses, color correction and saturation.

>>8906566
>earth photographed during apollo 8 mission

You really think they had better CGI in the 60s than they do now? That picture looks pretty legit.

>>8906617
>>8906505
Blue Marble, "The photograph, taken by astronauts on December 7, 1972, .... is one of the most widely distributed photographic images in existence"

Pic related, from blue marble

How does this not piss anyone else off? no worries guys, one of the most popular and significant images created in human history is full of copy and pasted clouds, it's a completely manufactured image

Even calling it a photograph is criminal

>>8906622

Maybe read on how the photograph was made instead of making an ass of yourself.

>>8906636
Woah I never considered that, oh wait yes I did, it's in the very first fucking post of this thread you dopey fuck

The fact nobody is able to post an actual PHOTOGRAPH of earth is pathetic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV55f_CgsJA

I'll play this game-let me guess, this rocket launch witnessed by thousands of people and equipped with cameras to show its landing is somehow part of the conspiracy too, a conspiracy that the government is paying billions of years to maintain for diaphanous, irrational reasons?

>>8906562
>No stars in the background

Gee, I wonder if this has been altered in any way

>>8906643

>Woah I never considered that, oh wait yes I did, it's in the very first fucking post of this thread you dopey fuck

Then why are you mystified about the photograph?

>The fact nobody is able to post an actual PHOTOGRAPH of earth is pathetic

>>8906562

>>8906649

It hasn't. That's why you don't see any stars.

>>8906649
There is no stars in the background because earth is much brighter by comparison. It drowns them out in the camera. That picture also illustrates why most pictures of earth are photoshopped, all you see is clouds.

>>8906650
Does this image look real to you?

"The Earth straddling the limb of the Moon, as seen from above Compton crater. Taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter."

>>8906622
that's not even the same blue marble in your picture, that's the 2001 version

>>8906658

That's not the photo I showed you.

How come continents keep changing size in these images?

NASA receive $20 billion per year and can't take a photograph of earth, they make composites that contain significant differences each time

Really activates my almonds.

>>8906519
>hurt continent size changed
Because of focal length you massive retard.

>hurr color changed
Because different cameras have different ways of recording color you massive retard.

So you think the 1800s were black as white?

>>8906676
>How come continents keep changing size in these images?
Different satilites different distances and positions from the earth with different lenses

>>8906476
>the governments have pulled off the biggest hoax in all of human history to convince everyone that the earth is not flat.

literally why?

>Thousands of images of Earth to compile into one
>Still resort to copy pasting the same 10 clouds over and over again

>>8906693
>clouds couldn't possibly have moved in the time between taking images

>>8906706
So the clouds moved but the continents never, interedasting

>>8906476

>>8906715
Can't see shit captain

I just want to see an unphotoshopped PHOTOGRAPH of earth that shows the true size of the continents

Uh oh, the guy who created blue marble admits, on the NASA website, that it is not a photograph

>The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17. NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites were designed to give a check-up of Earth’s health. By 2002, we finally had enough data to make a snap shot of the entire Earth. So we did. The hard part was creating a flat map of the Earth’s surface with four months’ of satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. I was happy with it but had no idea how widespread it would become. We never thought it would become an icon. I certainly never thought that I would become “Mr. Blue Marble.”

Retards like
>>8906678
>>8906682
BTFO

muh focal length, muh buzzwords

Weird, turns out I was right, the image is complete bullshit, just like it looks and just like I claimed, not a photograph

"It's photoshopped, it has to be" - Robbert Simmon, Graphic Designer at NASA

Whoops, there it is again

"My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space."

>>8906727

>Just show me a real image of earth, even if it's blurry and looks like shit.

>>8906741
Ok, let me rephrase, the quality has to at least be good as a cell phone camera from 2007

>>8906713
I suggest you go outside and look at the clouds. They do move. Continents on the other hand, do not move at an observable speed.

Daily new pictures from earth-sun lagrange point.

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

>>8906756
The earth is spinning a thousand miles per hour

You're retarded if you think the reason the same cloud appears 5 times in one image is because clouds move

The image is compiled over 5 months worth of data, supposedly

notice I said data, and not photographs or images

>>8906762

>The earth is spinning a thousand miles per hour

>>8906559
Pretty inconvenient actually.

>>8906762
The spin has no effect on the composite because everything is put together according to reference points on the continents. The reason you see the same cloud in two places is because the cloud physically moved with respect to the continent, and the computer put together two images from different times.

>>8906476
>moving the goalposts
Here is what you asked for in the OP.

I had a good debate guys, I won, again.

Better luck next time.

Apparently it's an impossible task for someone to take a single PHOTOGRAPH of Earth, apparently you have to take thousands of images over the course of 6 months and put them into photoshop and alter the color, size, sharpness, saturation, copy and paste the same clouds over and over again and most importantly: make sure to "match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space" - Robbert Simmon, Graphic Designer at NASA

You can't just point a camera and click and then upload it to NASA's website, that's way too complicated.

Have fun living in your deluded worlds pretending CGI images are photographs.

>>8906790
>Drumpfkin
>Ignores all logic and arguments, can't read and claims victory
Checks out

>>8906790
see
>>8906758

daily new, full-earth pictures. uploaded on the internet.

>>8906519

>>8906789
Wow borders are actually real and visible from space

>>8906476
Hey OP let's make a bet.

You decide two points, A and B, that lie closest to the edge of the flat Earth that are in a straight line with each other. You then choose another point C, which lies in the center of the flat Earth circle.

You book a flight from A to C, and I from A to B. We leave same time, same airline, same distance and velocity etc.

Given that the Earth is flat, my flight will take longer, since all these points are on a straight line, and distance between A to C is shorter than that between A to B.

I'll bet my entire life savings that I reach B before you reach C when we both start at A. Wanna put your faith to the test?

>>8906966
Forgot to add A and B are in a straight line that crosses the center.

>>8906476

>>8906966
God damn it not same distance. Same acceleration and velocity.

Is this photoshopped?

>>8906649
>picture of sky in broad daylight
>no stars

Sky confirmed for fake

>>8906476
If i post a picture of you (a sack of shit)
are you going to claim thats it's CGI?

>>8906476
Heres a good idea, post a picture of the flat earth maybe? Rather than just refusing to accept any of the evidence presented to you, why not post some of your own?

>>8906476
>Based of "data
these stupid phone cameras taking in light and translating it into digital code. What is that garbage data show me a real photograph without using this "data" you can't and i win.

god I'm so fucking smart

>>8906622

The Apollo "Blue Marble" image was already posted in this thread, anybody reading this thread can look at that image and see the image you posted is not from that image.

The confusion arises from a second image, also often called "Blue Marble," which is a composite of images made from LEO, where the entire Earth does not fit in the frame at one time -- so images are taken over time and then pasted together. Since clouds move over time you get artifacts like those repeated clouds.

NASA clearly discusses that this second image is a composite. As such, it does not match OP's request -- the original Apollo image, shot on film in one frame, does.

>>8907268
This image: >>8906505

was shot in one frame of a film camera n the Apollo 17 mission.

>>8907268 discusses the confusion sometimes caused by another image often called by the same name, that is a composite of digital images from low Earth orbit.

>>8906768
>flat-earthers can't understand basic geometry/perspective

I think that's all that needs to be said.

>>8906519
>you just posted the exact thing I described I didn't want to see
The Blue Marble is literally a single image taken with an actual camera by a human being. It's not a composite; it is in fact exactly what you asked for.

>>8906521
>the earth looks different from different angles therefore it's fake
the only explanation for this level of stupidity is that you have taken the principle that a flat earth would always look about the same from high above its surface, and sort of projected that expectation onto the round earth.

>>8906609
>hurr how come the same thing looks different when photographed from different angles with different cameras under different lighting conditions?
retard

>>8906734
>the guy who created blue marble admits, on the NASA website, that it is not a photograph
again, you fuckwits are talking about DIFFERENT PHOTOS. pic related is from the article you're quoting, showing Robert Simmons in front of the "Blue Marble". Note that that is the 2002 version (which is a composite); those of us who are versed in geography will recognize that North America is facing the viewer in it, whereas the 1972 Blue Marble has Africa front and center. >>8906505 See how they're different images?
do you realize that the very excerpt you quoted confirmed that the 1972 picture was indeed an unaltered photograph?
>The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17.
what a fucking moron you are.

>>8906790
>quotes article disproving his claim
>doesn't read the quote
>can't distinguish one picture of earth from space from another
>declares victory
sadly, it's possible to be too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

>>8907352
this desu senpai

>>8906519
Same way as FEs claim Africa's size is inconsistent. It's a matter of distance and focal length. And you will never be able to understand it, even if I took pictures of my globe with America showing to match your stupid meme.

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers: trolls for spite, trolls who test your knowledge, and literal Bible interpreters (LBIs). They have the freedom to make shit up

(lie) because truth and understanding are not their goals, and they end the arguments with "prove me wrong." This nefariously places the onus on you to spend your precious life's time to

provide information already available that they haven't and won't consider. By disavowing any science or proofs put forward and continuing to make shit up, they "win" by eroding your

patience. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of the violations of the most basic principles of geometry, math, science, and logic.

They aren't interested in critical thinking, refuse to put in the requisite effort to do the science, are blind to 3D visualization, and regularly refuse to respond when they can't

fabricate anything that would pass even their own red-faced test. LBIs concentrate on believing what their leaders tell them while ironically calling you a "sheeple," and will not allow

any sense to mar their fractured perception of the universe. They believe they are right, and they want you to become as stupid as they. The trolls will simply post sillier arguments and

resort to insults and taunts to keep you posting.

In any case, there is simply no arguing. Like trying to paint over mud, you just end up with a dirty brush.

Here's the deal: there are three types of Flat Earthers: trolls for spite, trolls who test your knowledge, and literal Bible interpreters (LBIs). They have the freedom to make shit up (lie) because truth and understanding are not their goals, and they end the arguments with "prove me wrong." This nefariously places the onus on you to spend your precious life's time to provide information already available that they haven't and won't consider. By disavowing any science or proofs put forward and continuing to make shit up, they "win" by eroding your patience. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of the violations of the most basic principles of geometry, math, science, and logic.

They aren't interested in critical thinking, refuse to put in the requisite effort to do the science, are blind to 3D visualization, and regularly refuse to respond when they can't fabricate anything that would pass even their own red-faced test. LBIs concentrate on believing what their leaders tell them while ironically calling you a "sheeple," and will not allow any sense to mar their fractured perception of the universe. They believe they are right, and they want you to become as stupid as they. The trolls will simply post sillier arguments and resort to insults and taunts to keep you posting.

In any case, there is simply no arguing. Like trying to paint over mud, you just end up with a dirty brush.

>>8906519
How come whenever the artistic world releases new images of the female human body, there are such drastic differences in the size of facial features? I want /art/ to give me one piece of artistic proof that the female human body actually exists and to debunk the Flat Women Theory

>>8907605

RTFM
>>8907586

>>8907586
this will make a fine addition to my collection

>>8907605
but anon, some women ARE flat...

>>8906519
>>8906529
>>8906566
>>8906609

>the size of continents are inconsistent from picture to picture
Take a look this diagram I drew. From the perspective of the closer satellite, the orange region takes up the entire visible face of the globe. From the perspective of the farther satellite, the orange region is surrounded by some extra space, making the region appear smaller in comparison to what's visible. This effect is sometimes exploited in cinema, where the technique used to achieve this effect is called a "dolly zoom".

Now you might say that the effect doesn't look very dramatic in my diagram. Of course, North America is much smaller compared to the Earth than the orange region is compared to my drawn circle. This will actually cause the effect to be even more dramatic for photos of the Earth than in my diagram, yielding the drastic difference you see in here >>8906519.

>>8906519
>>8906529
>>8906566
>>8906609
Wasn't really happy with how I drew my diagram here >>8907777 , so here's an improved version with less freehand, and with the farther satellite actually in view.

>>8906478
>unironically spewing roundearth garbage

lmaoing at your life, /sci/ never change.

>>8907859
Meta-shitposting is still shitposting, anon.

>>8907563
Those look like the exact same size, the right one is just zoomed in.

>>8907859
>roundearth garbage
pic is what visiting you and your church would be like for me.

>>8907867
Not him, but the effect is there, just not very prominent. It's probably because his camera's field of view is too small, so he can't bring the camera close enough while keeping the entire globe in view to make the effect obvious. See my diagram here >>8907856, and my explanation here >>8907777.

>>8907859

>>8907940
That's actually an infinite loop, look closer you retard

>>8907940
Dunno why, made me think of this.

>>8906505
Assuming that's an actual photograph then that's awesome. All the other CGI looking bullshit doesn't interest me.

"We photoshopped 1,000 images together and made some alterations to make it look extra pretty"

Gee thanks NASA, next time just try pointing a camera at taking a photo