/sci/ - Science & Math

You answered your own question

why do so many retards save brainlet wojak images to their computer?

>>9377220
fucking unimaginative board meme
get a better inside joke, my dudes

>>9377220
>Not making your own wojak images

>>9377208
Prove that we live on a giant ball spinning 1,000mph in a vacuum... waiting

>>9377274
https://youtu.be/VEDycfVoFaU

This pisses me off. Just because you believe what other people tell you does not mean you are smart. This is a fact that people, especially Vox reading bug pieces of shit, are incapable of understanding: The average person who claims the earth is flat is smarter than the average person. They show some reasoning ability, which is better than the vast majority of people in history. Repeating what you read on twitter makes you the dumbest motherfuckers on earth. I doubt you even understand why the Earth must be round. You might have some tweets memorized, you might be able to use Google, but I sincerely doubt you have any advanced reasoning ability.

>>9377289
I hope you're not seriously implying that Flat Earthers have advanced reasoning ability

>>9377300
I am. More advanced than the average person. The average flat earther is much smarter than the average round earther.

>>9377281
Replies with video link?

Prove, the earth is a giant spinning ball in space... still waiting... or prove "Space" is NOT science fiction... waiting...

>>9377302
i am not wasting my time writing a long paragraph about why the earth is not flat and is round you would probably just fucking say some shit like >UUHHHH THAT IS FAKE EVIDENCE or > UUHHHH I NEED MORE PROF THAN THAT if you really do think the earth is flat then fine but you are retarded if that is the case

>>9377208
They don't. They're either trolling, or they're hired by some government agency to poison the well.

>>9377301
Critical Thinking is a skill. I have concluded by my own observations that Relative Density can explain why all objects rise and fall. Gravity is a HOAX force. Electromagnetism is the only FORCE that can be observed and detected. You've been fooled. We all have been fooled. We didnt bother to check...

>>9377320
Well, lets pretend you are Astrophysicist.
How would you prove the Earth is a giant ball spinning 1,000mph in a vacuum?

Conduct your experiment. Prove it to yourself... if you can?

>>9377323

>Relative Density can explain why all objects rise and fall.

then why is it that when you modulate the density of an object its weight does not vary proportionally?

also, buoyancy is a product of gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mzDvpKzfY

things float BECAUSE gravity is pulling on the medium around surrounding them. the only reason you accept the "relative density" argument is because you have zero understanding of how buoyancy and density even work.

> Electromagnetism is the only FORCE that can be observed and detected

false. it's just the easiest.It's not like more minute forces can't exist just because they're harder to detect. you're doing the equivelant of just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY"

>>9377338
You are super salty, cool your jets and think...

Why does an egg float in salt water, but sinks in fresh water? The egg didnt change, the medium surrounding it did.

Relative Density, Relative....density is what causes objects to rise and fall.

Gravity is a HOAX

>>9377332
well first off i would study the electromagnetic field i would eventually gain enough evidence that what is causing it is a giant ball shaped core in the earth spinning a little faster than the rest of earth creating friction and energy causing the field i would also team up with many scientists to send satellites into space and take pictures of the earth showing it has a curvature i would also look at something as simple as the moon and see it has curvature and look at every other fucking planet in the universe and see that they also do in fact have curvature thus i can conclude that the earth is round

>>9377260
Looks like some scp shit

>>9377357
What if your evidence says the magnetic field is flat and diverging from a single point at the North pole... Then what?

>>9377356
What's the name of that drink?

>>9377356
it's clear you have very little understanding of physics.

>The egg didnt change, the medium surrounding it did.

which is exactly what i said. things float and sink BECAUSE of gravity. did you even watch the video?

>Gravity is a HOAX

t. someone who has never done the Cavendish experiment. unlike you i was able to do it personally for a class. sorry bud, gravity exists.

>>9377363
Based on the contents I'd call it "clogged arteries, diabeetus and death float"

>>9377357
You find out satellites are not real, and all communication is handled by undersea cables and UHF skip... now what?

>>9377208
indoctrination by the indoctrinated.

>>9377362
well if there was no evidence that the earth was round from the photographs from the satellites then yes i would think the earth was flat but with the evidence then i must of done a miscalculation and done it again but realistically it would show the magnetic field diverging from the north and the south pole so i would not have this problem

>>9377338
>>9377332

>Well, lets pretend you are Astrophysicist.

lucky for you i actually am an astrophysicist.

>How would you prove the Earth is a giant ball spinning 1,000mph in a vacuum?

first we have to prove that it's likely that the earth is a ball. for that, lets look to the sun. we know that at any given time, the height (in degrees) at which the sun can be observed modulates directly with the observers latitude, such that a degree change in latitude corresponds to a degree change in the apparent position of the sun in the sky. on a flat earth, it would not be this way. on a flat earth, a degree change in latitude would correspond to a greater change at the equator than at higher latitudes, but that's not what we see.

so now that we know it's likely that the earth is a ball, we should go about determining the radius. in that case, all we would have do if take two points at some distance apart (north/south), and measure the difference in degrees at which the sun appears in the sky.

next, since we know that it's likely a ball, and we know the circumference of that ball, and we know that it takes about 24 hours to spin once, then we can know the speed at which any point on the ball is spinning. as it turns out, when you do these measurements, it turns out that the equator is spinning at roughly 1000 mph.

fyi, when you say "the earth is spinning at 1000 mph, it just makes you look stupid, and makes it seem like you don't know the difference between radial and angular speed. it's not the earth that spinning at 1000 mph, it's the equator.

>>9377371
well then there could be a chance that the earth is flat but satellites are real so this is not a problem

>>9377371

>You find out satellites are not real

except that you can clearly see hundreds of them every night if you aren't assaulted with light pollution.

>all communication is handled by undersea cables and UHF skip

and your proof of this is... ?

>>9377365
You claim Im wrong, but you cant explain why a simple egg will float or sink.

It is becoming obvious that YOU have no formal education, physics or otherwise. You claim GRAVITY is real, but you cant explain it, measure it or observe it.

You are blindly defending a world of fiction. You are mad because you are too proud to admit you dont know and too stupid to defend it.

>>it is

>>9377338
What weighs more?

10 grams of iron liquid
10 grams of iron solid
10 grams of iron gas

Same weIght, different VOLUME, right?
But how will these three things act in water? In air? In a vacuum?

>>9377208
it's obviously memery

>>9377383
those are just hills

>>9377301
I have deduced that transferable wormholes exist and can be artificially created by the lizard ruling class

>>9377390

>You claim Im wrong, but you cant explain why a simple egg will float or sink.

just because you can't infer the explanation from the givens doesn't mean that i'm wrong.

the reason an egg floats is because the difference in water pressure at the bottom of the egg and at the top of the egg is greater than the weight of the egg.

AKA the water wants that spot more than the egg does, so the water pushed the egg out of the way (upwards) that was an extremely simplified explanation but i suppose it will do.

>but you cant explain it,

just because you think it can't be explained doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E

it's probably too complex for you but you should still give it a show.

>measure it or observe it.

i already told you that i have personally measured gravity. it's called the Cavendish experiment.

I love these threads because I watch the cognitive dissonance of flat earthers get torn to pieces.

>I save brainlet wojaks

>>9377442
This isn't a comparable position. The point is that flat earthers can construct arguments, even if they are flawed >>9377323 So calling them stupid misses the point that they are smarter than most people who believe the earth is round.

>>9377220
Yeah, and fucking frog posts

>>9377426
what are you even trying to get at?

yes. same weight, different volume. however, less dense things like to sit on top of denser things.

even though a gas floats upward you can still measure its weight in a vacuum, like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o

>>9377208

Because if they never think about what's past the firmament

Show me a practical experiment of a solid sphere having water conform to its exterior due to its own gravitational pull. I will then take the globe model a little more seriously.

>>9379480
>Show me
no
>I will then take the globe model a little more seriously.
no one gives a fuck about your opinion

>>9379485

>no

The current state of "science" at the moment.

>>9377208
because it's a fun way to troll autists and demagogues online

>>9378561
Kek, this hits the nail on the head

>>9379480
>practical experiment
>due to gravitational pull
Explain how this could possibly be done without using a planet-sized object as a model and then I will take your post a little more seriously

>>9377208
>still
Modern flat-Earthers didn't think the Earth was flat 2 years ago.

>>9379505

Does it? How about having oceans covering the majority of the earth sized tennis ball (while the tennis ball is spinning). Does it still work?

>>9379517
easily, if you use your brain.

>>9379514

Using a scaled down model of course. And if you can't do that then it's not science. Science should be observable, testable and repeatable.

>>9377301
>round-earther
You people should have your own bathrooms and drinking fountains and be subject to lynchings

>>9379519

I have and it's concluded that the water would spin off. Prove it won't.

>>9379526
>prove a negative
hehe looks like you're out of luck smoothbrain

>>9377332
Gravity theory posits a sphere is the most probable shape of an unperturbed body, or result of a cloud of non-interacting matter.

Gravitation was posited at the exact same time as mathematical mechanics.

>>9379522
typical violent globalist. can't stand someone questioning your religion?

>>9379527

All you need to do is provide practical evidence of gravity causing water to conform to the exterior of a spinning sphere. Is that really too much to ask?

>>9379543
look at any celestial body.

>>9379552

Not good enough, none of us have directly observed water on those lights in the sky. I need a practical example.

>>9379557
have you tried spinning the ball more slowly?

>>9379564

What ball?

>>9379520
Not everything can be scaled down

t. surface tension of water allowing a bug to skip across a pond.

Scale the pond x1,000,000 to an ocean and scale the bug x1,000,000 proportionally larger, it will sink, because the surface tension of water is a constant regardless of how big the body of water is.

Scaling doesn't work when it breaks down phenomena that arise from constants.

>>9379577
any ball covered in water

Why the fuck are you faggots feeding the trolls?

Neck selves.

>>9379578

If you're scaling the pond and the bug times a million, then it's only fair you scale everything else in existence times a million. The same thing would happen.

>>9379579

The water falls off and any remaining water will dry off.

Why are most flat earth retards american?

>>9379613
>>9379581

Profound arguments.

>>9379597
did you submerge the ball in a bucket of ether?

>>9379682

Wouldn't be a valid experiment.

>>9379750
wrong.

all aboard the bingo

>>9377274
Erastotenes did that with two sticks and a sun clock.
Your move.

>>9377338
If you accept gravity you must accept round earth. Like, gravity implies that.

>>9377274
You can prove that the Earth is round by observing the celestial poles at different latitudes.
It doesn't matter if the stars are spinning around you or if it's you that's spinning, it would still look the same from your perspective but the position of the poles depending on your latitude proves that you are standing on a sphere and not a flat plane.

I wanted to compile a list of questions to ask flat earth faggots, does /sci/ have any suggestions for good ones?

>Who ultimately benefits from convincing the people of the world that the earth is spherical and not flat, and how?
>Why does the entire world not see the sun and moon simultaneously?
>Why do solar eclipses happen?
>Why is there a horizon line?
>Why is the coriolis effect an observable phenomenon; why do hurricanes spin counterclockwise north of the equator and clockwise south of it?

I tested them on /x/ fairly recently and they gave cop out answers for all of them, naturally, but I want more.

>>9379760

If the seas were made of ether then it'd make more sense.

>>9379778

The same effect would happen on a stationary flat plane with a moving sun overhead.

>>9379796
I should also add that since the stars apparent position on the celestial sphere do not change no matter where you are on Earth also proves that the stars are very far away.

>>9377379
/thread.

>>9377274
How far above the ground is the Sun on a flat Earth? When you try to calculate that using real life observations we quickly find out that it can't be close nor far away if you're using a flat plane.
The only way to make it work with our observations is to make the Earth into a sphere and place the Sun far away. There is no other way.

>>9377274
Antarctic midnight Sun is impossible if the Sun is circling above a flat plane since the Sun will only be visible to the North of the observer but if you use a sphere with a Sun that's far away it fits perfectly with real life observations.

>>9379796

Your spherical example also uses a flat earth, you need to show this in 3D.

>Who ultimately benefits from convincing the people of the world that the earth is spherical and not flat, and how?

Those who benefit from perpetuating this myth. A spherical earth has a finite amount of land with finite resources and no escape unless you go "up" (which conveniently is something that only space "agencies" can do.

>Why does the entire world not see the sun and moon simultaneously?

Perspective, everything merges into the vanishing point of the horizon. The sun and moon will both move far enough away to merge with the horizon so we cannot see it.

>Why do solar eclipses happen?

We don't know what planets actually are as we are not able to directly observe and test them. You'd think they'd have film a solar eclipse on close up by now at least.

>Why is there a horizon line?

Perspective makes things further away smaller towards a central point which when far away enough becomes the horizon. Potentially the plane is infinite, which is why the earth appears to be at least round which is easy to confuse as spherical curvature. The roundness, or circular nature makes sense on an infinite plane because an infinite plane will have infinite directions as a circle does.

>Why is the coriolis effect an observable phenomenon

This effect assumes that if the earth wasn't rotating, it wouldn't happen. However this hasn't been proven, and how can you prove it when every experiment you do will be done on a supposedly rotating earth? Science doesn't work that way.

>why do hurricanes spin counterclockwise north of the equator and clockwise south of it?

So if a hurricane went from North America to South America, would it be spinning in the opposite direction?

>>9377274
You can scream shill, globe head or whatever all day long but as long as you have no explanation for these phenomena then you're a dumb dumb and I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just the truth.
You can't ignore real life observations and pretend that your model works. Make a working model and SHOW that it works or you'll continue to be just that, a simple minded dumb dumb who mindlessly watches YouTube videos like a sheep while pretending you're enlighten. I know it sounds harsh but truth can be painful.

>>9379796
>>9379831
>>9379837

>>9379865
>Perspective, everything merges into the vanishing point of the horizon. The sun and moon will both move far enough away to merge with the horizon so we cannot see it.

Yet the Sun and Moon have a constant angular size throughout the day. You can post videos of glare from the Sun getting bigger but that's not the actual size of the Sun.

>>9379865
>>9379873
And if you don't believe that the reflection shows the true size of the Sun then I have this video for you demonstrating the same effect.

>>9379881

Really grasping at straws here. First you need to turn the light off as well to confirm the reflection is the same size, you also need to move further away to make sure the size of the reflection doesn't change.

>>9378415
i call feelsguy "wojak"

>>9379894
I have a low exposure picture of the same lamp that demonstrate this, I'm just gonna move the image file from my phone unto my computer, just be patient.

>>9379894
>>9379925
You can have this picture and video in the meantime.

You can see the same kind of reflection in the video and also the true size of the Sun through the welding glass. Compare them and they are the exact same size.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tWK5ou1ziE

>>9377208
its mostly religious blacks, probably have the lowest IQ

>>9377208
Go outside and measure it

Curvature=(.666 feet)(Distance2 miles)

>>9379925
Alright, I have the picture but the image scale is different from the video but I'm gonna make a new video just for you using a lamp and a solar filter and you will see that the reflection and the light are in fact the same size.

>>9379975
Go outside and measure it
It s really flat

>>9379894
>>9379988

>>9379945

Putting some material in front of the sun and saying that's how big the sun is, is not scientific evidence. You can create material to make the sun many different sizes.

>>9379989

>>9379988

Also move closer and further away to show the reflection not changing size.

>>9379995
https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

first they came for the straight people, and i said nothing.
then they came for the genders, and i said nothing.
now they come for my earth's shape, will i stay silent?

>>9379975

>>9380016

>>9379873
>>9379881

just use a solar filter, and you can even just look at the moon.

both the sun and moon clearly stay the same size throughout the day.

>>9380021

>>9380023
Exactly, you can just observe the Moon when it rises or sets at the horizon and you will see that it is the same size as when it's high in the sky.
I highly encourage this because it's really beautiful sight.

>>9380023
https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

https://youtu.be/U9wDxktPx4k

>>9380007

Pixelated mess - show the full sunset and sun rise.

>>9379995
Solar foil is just that, foil. no magnifying effect through that. You can even use aluminum foil (use a camera if you decide to use aluminum foil, can be damaging to your eyes).

>>9380035
Post a link/citation NASA or any science agency measuring the diameter and/or distance to the Sun or Moon
https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

https://youtu.be/WwimocU0IIc

>>9380045

>>9379807
>Why does the entire world not see the sun and moon simultaneously?
they have an answer to that one - the dome is a projection device that shows different images to different parts of the earth

>>9379865

>Your spherical example also uses a flat earth, you need to show this in 3D

no he doesn't. you're just moving the goalposts.you will be just as wrong in a 3d example as you are in a 2d example.

>Perspective, everything merges into the vanishing point of the horizon.

i hope you don't think that the "vanishing point" is an actual distance away from you where objects disappear. sorry to burst your bubble. by definition, there is no distance away that you can move an object such that it disappears completely. I know how cameras work. I know how optics work. no matter how far away an object is, it is always a non zero angular size.

>>9379894
>>9380003
The reflection is the same size as the lamp itself.

>>9380067
radio signals bounce off of large metal sheets. yes, that's correct.

>>9380069
That still doesn't explain why the entire earth doesn't see the all of the projection at the same time

>>9379811
the earth is submerged in the ether of space, bud. it reaches down through the clear sky to touch the ocean

>>9379995
>Putting some material in front of the sun and saying that's how big the sun is, is not scientific evidence.

>"LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU"

unfortunately for you, yes, it is scientific evidence.

unfortunately, you give it a significant curve, which unfortunately for you the guy's video is lacking.

>>9377274

https://youtu.be/TmetQD1q4bY

>>9379975
sorry but that's the wrong formula.

>>9379894
see
>>9380073

>>9380000
as it turns out, when you account for refraction the amount of the mountain you should expect to see and the amount of the mountain you actually see line up almost exactly.

Earth-chan is the cutest

>>9380000
someone should rewrite that calculator so it doesn't assume the atmosphere is a vacuum

>>9380069
>>9380084
https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

>>9380045

Just because it's foil doesn't mean it can accurately represent the size of the sun. Also, the material used in the video is made of just foil, there's another layer the light goes through.

>>9380069

I haven't directly observed a dome so wouldn't subscribe to that.

>>9380070
>no he doesn't. you're just moving the goalposts.you will be just as wrong in a 3d example as you are in a 2d example.

You can't prove a spherical earth using flat images of the earth, that's just proof of a flat earth.

>>9380070
>i hope you don't think that the "vanishing point" is an actual distance away from you where objects disappear. sorry to burst your bubble. by definition, there is no distance away that you can move an object such that it disappears completely. I know how cameras work. I know how optics work. no matter how far away an object is, it is always a non zero angular size.

Your eyes can only receive light from a limited distance. You can't see all of the stars can you?

>>9379995
See>>9380073

>>9380084
yes it does - "shows different images to different parts of the earth". in their view, the projection device is showing every location on earth a unique image of the sky

>>9380062
>that image.

the "hotspot" is actually a gap in the clouds. you can tell, because it changes shape throughout the video.

>>9380073

You've done the same thing again, you didn't switch the light off to prove it's the same size, nor did you move further or closer.

>>9380096
It s correct
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/qq.09.02/shirley3.html

You forgot your citation to the "correct" formula

>>9380099
>>9380106
You forgot your citation

>>9380108
You always use "the vanishing point" as an argument as well as an explanation for why Polaris appears closer to the horizon when you travel from the North towards the equator but you can't explain why the stars around Polaris never converge towards the "vanishing point". The stars have the same angular distance to each other no matter where you are.

https://youtu.be/OmcwW-8CC6E

>>9380115
But that doesn't make any sense.

>>9380131
None of flat earth makes sense, you're quibbling with this one thing?

https://youtu.be/RtU_mdL2vBM

https://youtu.be/O2QqOvFMG_A

>>9380136
I'm quibbling with how they convince themselves that this particular thing makes sense as an argument

>>9380119
You're really grasping at straws.
The solar filter proves that the lamp is the same size as the reflection.

>>9380136
Post link/citation to proof/experiment/demonstration of the convexity of water

>>9380123
https://cseligman.com/text/sky/atmosphericrefraction.htm

>>9380119

>>9380120
>>9380123

does pure math need a citation now? are you kidding me? fortunately for me, math can exist in a vacuum, and you don't need citations as long as your formula follows logically from the given to the solution.

the correct formula is this:

sqrt( r^2 - d^2) where r is the radius of the earth in the same units as d.

however, you can achieve the same result with trigonometry.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bowe12uf8n

input all values into this graph. it accounts for refraction too.

also, >>9380120

posting a link to a person using the incorrect formula does not magically make it the correct formula. even at that, the person using it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS that it is only an APPROXIMATION of the correct formula. that is: it is WRONG at long distances, and it becomes even more wrong the further out you go.

>>9380151
the pool and lake examples don't show bodies of water large enough to have visible curvature in a single shot, and without knowing the field of view of the third shot we can't know how much of an arc is being shown and thus how much curvature we would expect to see.

>>9380156
>A series of images taken by astronaut Don Pettit from the International Space Station, showing the full moon "setting" on April 16, 2003 (the "setting" being actually caused by the orbital motion of the Space Station).

https://youtu.be/BK-uatwOOeA

https://youtu.be/U9wDxktPx4k

>>9380151
here you go. lol.

>>9380172
none of that disproves the refraction of the moon

>>9380172
its extremely sad that you're too stupid to understand why the guy's moon measurement video is completely wrong.

>>9380175
>>9380164
>>9380163


https://youtu.be/3N6Em4tzH6g

>>9380145
They're not the same size. Also, does the light flare get less the further you away you go?

>>9380192

They are different in size due to the amount of light they allow.

>>9380191
And again, that calculation does not take into account refraction.

>>9380187
Post your citation to the Sun and/or Moon being measured.
https://youtu.be/uAJtzbWebMs

>>9380198
>>9380192
No, they are the same size.

>>9380187

>>9380192
The further away you go the smaller the light will become which in turn will make the reflection smaller since it's an exact copy of the light.
This is such an easy concept to comprehend and it baffles me that you can't understand it. I really hope that you are baiting.

>>9380200
https://youtu.be/nbaJDOb7tWY

https://youtu.be/vhsAK6YHIHQ

>>9380201

i don't need a citation to prove that he's wrong.

he assumes the moon is moving 1000 miles per hour, thus concluding that the moon is 41 miles in diameter. nowhere does he say where he got that number. and even so, i have no doubt the 1000 mph figure was derived from his understanding of the flat earth model, which has already been shown to be false.

thus, he is wrong.

>>9380206
simply insulting someone isn't an ad hominem.

>>9380223
approximately 30 km. i don't know why you are ignoring these images. the curve is clearly visible.

>>9380198
Rotate the reflection 180 degrees and you will see that they are the same size.
The reflection will always be an exact copy of the source but it will be rotated 180°.

https://youtu.be/xpzeTbK1trg

https://youtu.be/O8ir_3yiX64

>>9380239
stop spamming retarded videos. i hope you are trolling.

in case you aren't:

the video's creator forgets that "up" and "down" shift as you travel along the earth.

he recognizes that up and down are local events, but somehow is unable to realize that they continuously change.

>>9380239
come on now, i thought even you were better than that stupidity. the nile problem just betrays a complete lack of understanding of the globe model by flat earthers, not a problem with the globe model.

>>9380205

Put one over the other and you'll see they're not.

>>9380215
But that's exactly my argument. The sun gets bigger the closer it is, and smaller the further away it is until it blends with the horizon. That's how perspective works.

>>9380247
i don't know why you keep spouting this.

1: there is NO distance where the angular size of an object becomes zero.

2: the sun and the moon clearly stay the exact same size throughout the day.

>>9380234
https://youtu.be/OmcwW-8CC6E

https://youtu.be/LMYx-Ft8b6c

>>9380237

What's the picture supposed to be? You clearly haven't completely covered the moon.

>>9380257
>1: there is NO distance where the angular size of an object becomes zero.

Therefore you can see infinitely far?

>2: the sun and the moon clearly stay the exact same size throughout the day.

Day and night or just day?

https://youtu.be/EiBJBVBez_w

>>9379920
if i know his name im not going to pretend like i don't. And now you know his name is wojak

>>9380258

why did you post a picture of a curved horison?

>>9380263

>Therefore you can see infinitely far?

no. there is a difference between "infinitely far" and "arbitrarily far". if something were infinitely far away it' angular size would be zero, and it would be rendered invisible. however, at any arbitrary distance an object will still maintain a nonzero angular size.

https://youtu.be/vVX-PrBRtTY

>>9380272

Crunch the numbers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

>>9380264

>"""""""""""proofs""""""""""""

literally all of them are wrong. the guy constantly misunderstands both the flat earth model and the globe earth model to make arguments that fail on both empirically and logically.

>>9380282

Just because something has an angular size doesn't mean you can see it. Once something is far away enough it's essentially invisible to us.

>>9380263
The Moon is bright which results in glare which makes the Moon look a little bigger. The reflection again shows the true size.
I just wanted to show the the reflection is rotated 180°.

>>9380293
technically yes, but not because of this guy's magical version of "perspective"

>>9380288
https://youtu.be/fEvYteb57JE

>>9380293
Of course, but a telescope with a big enough mirror and focal length will make it visible.

>>9380294
https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

>>9380300

>>9380297
By perspective I mean the capability of the eyes and how distance works. This isn't magical, it's just how things work. Things further away get smaller to a point where the limited ability of the eyes cannot discern it from the horizon.

>>9380309
You will be able to resolve Jupiter with a pair of binoculars but not it's Moons. Note that I said "resolve". You will still see the light reflected off of the moons but it's impossible to see an image of the moons itself. You will only see a point light source AKA airy disk.

>>9380309
>>9380318
Increase the size of the optical opening (the size of the lens or mirror) and the airy disk will turn into an actual image.

>>9380318
https://youtu.be/S_O-4U6S3V8

https://youtu.be/_JiO4jZr9CE

https://youtu.be/abLKzCaenvE

>get invaded by rabid hillbillies from /r/the_donald for a bit over a year
>there are flat earther threads on the SCIENCE board
I'm getting sick of all this winning.

>>9380300

>>9380345

>>9380320

Trying to measure the size of something using external instrumentation is doomed to fail because you'll get different results from different instruments.

Do you believe these planets are being illuminated by the sun?

>>9380333
I don't know what you're trying to prove with the first two videos since I clearly said that a pair of binoculars can easily resolve an image of Jupiter and the P900's lens is bigger than most binoculars. I also said that the moons will be visible but small optics will not be able to resolve an image. They will appear as points of light, exactly as your videos show.

You're last video is clearly out of focus and you can clearly see the diffraction pattern (bright and black rings) within the unfocused image.

>>9380345
>>9380349
are you trying to imply that you're salty or something phone poster? If you're trying to imply that jupiters moons are just holograms or something then we'd be able to tell immediately from the spectra

>>9380369

I think it more likely they're just there, but what they are is another question.

>>9380390
we've sent probes to jupiter

>>9380390
for you

>>9380360
>>9380369
>>9380405
https://youtu.be/6Myf7oH0n9g

>>9379480
you're a stupid cunt, but I'm bored.
How about instead of an experiment I point you at other planetary sized bodies with oceans?
>Europa
>Enceladus
>Titan (not water, but it's a liquid sticking to the surface of the world because of gravity)

>>9380405

By "we" who do you mean?

>>9380411
Obviously.

>>9380418
>How about instead of an experiment

Science without an experiment? Excuse me?

>>9380432
the human race

>>9380438

You can be more specific than that.

>>9380418
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

https://youtu.be/N-vUkZHnjGI

>>9380415
"How far" is a meaningless question. It all depends on the angular size of the object and the angular resolution of the optical system.
You can have something really far away but if it's also really big you will still be able to see it.

>>9380432
>Convex/curved water
>Flat and curved at the same time

>>9380451
Post videos/links of the Sun/Moon/Stars being measured

https://youtu.be/JalSUkondr8

>>9380464

>>9380464
>I have no comprehension of scale the post

>>9380469
https://youtu.be/da6XAzhcn_E

>>9380472
>Irony

>>9380493

>>9380469
Daily reminder that level doesn't not mean flat.

>>9380496
Why is the image claiming that there isn't on curvature on the x axis when it's clearly visible?

>>9380506

>>9380450
For the final fucking time.

Putting a balloon into orbit requires a rocket. Why? Because balloons can't float into space. Why? Because if something's in space it by definition cannot be floating.

If you honestly believe that NASA Sends satellites up via balloon you have no understanding of how balloons work, how orbits work, or how space works.

>>9380509
>>9380496
Re read thread

>>9380464
>attempting to disprove globe earth models without the slightest understanding of gravity

>>9380526
again, there is no such thing as a vanishing point. It's just an artists term. There is no point where the angular size of an object becomes zero.

>>9380523
https://youtu.be/hK_kWN0BsKs

>>9380432
>Science without an experiment? Excuse me?

No, because there is no excuse for your level of willful idiocy. And I mean idiocy in its old medical terminology. You have access to the entire internet, to all the relevant data, to the entire goddamn world. Yet you choose to believe a thing which is disproven time and again by nigh unto innumerable persons in the history of humanity. You are defective to the point of proving yourself a detriment to society as a whole and thus should be expelled from society and left to your own means elswhere.

Go get yourself set on fire and put out with a bucket full of AIDS.

>>9380530
https://youtu.be/-SrZn1K5zoo

https://youtu.be/L93WyZ01V24

>>9380536
There is no proof the spinning ball earth exisits

>>9380533
Again, launching a balloon into the high atmosphere and placing a baloon into orbit are two different things.

In the picture you posted, NASA launched a deflated baloon into orbit, And then inflated it so it can reflect a signal.

In the video you posted, NASA let a baloon float into The high atmosphere, and then float back down.

>>9380556
https://youtu.be/zYLJGXthzpE

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

>>9380528
https://youtu.be/Efh4bu4rcbs

>>9380333
Are you implying that you wouldn't see Jupiter with a p900?
When Jupiter is at its closest at 588 million km it will have an angular size of 49 arcseconds.
At its farthest which is 968 million km it will be 29 arcseconds.
The p900 has a 6.7 cm wide lens so it will have an angular resolution of 1.73 arcseconds which means that it can't resolve anything with an angular size under 1.73 arcseconds. 29" is above 1.73" and so is 49" so it will have no problem resolving Jupiter.

Angular resolution in arcseconds = 11.6/D (D is size of lens or mirror in cm)

Angular size in arcseconds = 2arctan(diameter of object/(2*objects distance))*60^2

>>9380565
https://youtu.be/mq64QfTCRt0

>>9380572
>>9380565
Echo was put into ORBIT with a ROCKET? What part of this do you fail to grasp phone poster? Go back to fapping to your balloon porn.

>>9380570
>>9380309

>>9380576
https://youtu.be/N-vUkZHnjGI

>>9380565
Since you have not even once stated what you think you're proving, I'm going to have to guess.

Do you somehow think that because NASA inflated a Mylar sphere in space (technically making it a baloon) that it proves that space isn't really a vacuum?

I'll try and make this extreemly simple for you.

The reason baloons overinflate and pop in space is because they cannot take 14 psi of pressure. If you actually bothered to read into project echo, then you would know that they didn't need inflate the sphere to atmospheric pressure. Why? Because there was no atmosphere.

Also, since the sphere was in orbit, it needs to have been traveling at over 7 km/s. It really was floating on top of the atmosphere, it would have slowed down in a matter of minutes. This proves that the baloon cannot be floating. On top of it all, it wasnt even a baloon. It was just a sphere that was being kept round by an internal gas.

>>9380583
I don't watch youtube videos phone poster. Now just what part of ROCKET do you fail to understand?

>>9380584
During ground inflation tests, 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) of air were needed to fill the balloon, but while in orbit, several pounds of gas were all that was required to fill the sphere. At launch the balloon weighed 156.995 pounds (71.212 kg) which included 33.34 pounds (15.12 kg) of sublimating powders of two types.[2] The first weighing 10 pounds (4.5 kg) with a very high vapor pressure, the second with a much lower vapor pressure.[2] According to NASA, "To keep the sphere inflated in spite of meteorite punctures and skin permeability, a make-up gas system using evaporating liquid or crystals of a subliming solid were incorporated inside the satellite."[3]

The 30.5-metre (100 ft) diameter balloon was made of 0.5-mil-thick (12.7 μm) metalized 0.2-micrometre-thick (0.00787-mil) biaxially oriented PET film ("Mylar") material

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

>>9380584
>On top of it all, it wasnt even a baloon.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2124.html

>>9380591
Correct. Thus proving that the sphere could not have been in atmosphere.

>>9380594
Please stop being so idiotic. Baloon is a PR term, which confuses people like you into thinking that somehow it was floating like high altitude baloon.

>>9380598
>>9380603
Who said it s floating?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

>>9380603
>Please stop being so idiotic. Baloon is a PR term,

During ground inflation tests, 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) of air were needed to fill the balloon, but while in orbit, several pounds of gas were all that was required to fill the sphere. At launch the balloon weighed 156.995 pounds (71.212 kg) which included 33.34 pounds (15.12 kg) of sublimating powders of two types.[2] The first weighing 10 pounds (4.5 kg) with a very high vapor pressure, the second with a much lower vapor pressure.[2] According to NASA, "To keep the sphere inflated in spite of meteorite punctures and skin permeability, a make-up gas system using evaporating liquid or crystals of a subliming solid were incorporated inside the satellite."[3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

Hey flat-earthers: say you went in a vomit comet and spilled a glass of water. what do you think would happen?

If the earth is a globe and the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, why does the sun shrink into the sunset subject to vanishing point?

https://imgur.com/a/708SU


I measured this with a projector and counted pixels, largest sun, 25 pixels, smallest, 9 pixels. And it had more to go because it disappeared behind the Santa Monica mountains.

I would like to see what globers and flat earthers think about this.

>>9380672
The truth is that the sun doesent actually shrink, rather, since the light from a sun that Is low in sky has to pass through more atmosphere, so it's like looking through solar filter. As a result, the sun's glare is much smaller.

If you look at the sun through a solar filter it doesent change in size at all.

lo siento, mi amigo, you're mostly wrong. almost entirely.

when the sun passes through more atmosphere, the light you see experiences refraction and a larger ball. the best conditions to observe vanishing point of the sun are on days after a rain when the air is ionized the you have the least amount of particles in the sky. the sun will always shrink and refraction only makes our sun bigger. I have done this time lapse on heavy chem and cloud days and the phenomenon is reverse. you can't see a vanishing point on those days.

prove me wronk!

https://youtu.be/uAJtzbWebMs

>>9380568
>>9380606
buoyancy doesn't work without a downward force.

>>9380760

https://youtu.be/5WtSTPodQ60

>>9380772

>>9380775
https://youtu.be/tp6UkqIwVfk

>>9380765
Except the baloon didn't float or use the principles of buoyancy in any way.

>>9380775
Except Polaris actually does move and wobble. Your claim that it stays "perfectly still" is false.

>>9380758
Atmospheric Refraction does not magnify things. It squashes them.

>>9377379
/THREAD

BAR THREAD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz6qEnia_BA

do you have an example of this?

>>9377323
Gravity isn't a force.

>>9380965
it can basicly be considered one.

>>9377302
How does your GPS system work?

>>9377390
The egg floats because gravity pulls on the salt water harder than it pulls on the egg.

Tell me, why do dense things move down if not gravity?

>>9380045
Or you can use tinfoil to keep the mind control waves at bay.

>>9377208
They are in the wrong timeline and the time mods aren't doing their fucking job.

GPS is mostly land based. Satellites are ballooned up where LEO satellites can't cover. Again, mostly land based. Check this next time your on a flight. You can see cell service go on and off at around 500-2000ft.

>>9381009
speaking as someone who has personally designed gps systems with a team (i was in charge of signal acquisition) gps is not mostly ground based.

stop making empty claims that have absolutely no proof.

>>9381009
>>GPS
>>land based
get out. Maybe you have a shitty phone, but my GPS works at all those altitudes.

>>9381009
cell service is not GPS.

I don't see anything about gravity in the first explanation by google. Buoyancy and density. The rest of our living experience is electricity. Perhaps we are in a geomagnetic lock to the earth and not this thing called gravity.

"If you put an egg in a cup of tap water, it will sink to the bottom. ... When enough salt is added to the water, the saltwater solution's density becomes higher than the egg's, so the egg will then float! The ability of something, like the egg, to float in water or some other liquid is known as buoyancy."

>>9381026
>Being retarded enough to think that buoyancy occurs in zero gravity
Explain what causes buoyancy, when we can observe it horizontally with basic experiments like in the motion of a helium balloon in an accelerating car.

>>9381026
What force is pulling that egg to the bottom?

Right, cell service dies on a plane. GPS keeps working but unless you have downloaded maps you can't see where you're at.

GPS antennas riddle the land, you can see them when you drive cross country and probably most developed countries, supplemented by air satellites and who knows even buoys. GPS doesnt work on every inch of the planet btw. Also, would it make more sense that we get our bearings from geostationary sources or solely from computers flying through the sky thousands of miles per hour?

Its a grid. Also, our flights to asia follow the coast ftw!

Density. Add the 14.7 lbs of atmospheric pressure at sea level. This decreases in LEO of course.

I'll play. The density doesn't change just because you're in an enclosed area. Same as if you dropped a marble in the same car. The density wants it to go down. No point.

Lets play a bigger flat earth game. If this density we exist is the heaviest of our solar system (I used the term loosely) and we are in a geocentric existence with the sun. Dont you see that the densest planets are close to us and the gas planets are further away or up from us. Just an observation.

Why is it so hard for people to admit that the Earth is flat? Be honest with me.

>>9381079
>The density wants it to go down.
that's not how density works

Pride. Doubled-down on the wrong indoctrination. Not expert and understanding the sciences. Doesn't know about lensing and stuff.

Google: The Global Positioning System (GPS) is made up of satellites, GROUND STATIONS, and receivers. GPS is a system. ... Once the receiver calculates its distance from four or more satellites, it knows exactly where you are."

in plain sight mate.

how does it work, doc?

>>9381110
> eric dubay

that guy is an absolute goof.

flat earth wins. globies got nothing. outta ammo. their women ravaged by woke flat earthers.

>>9381013
That's exactly what you just did hypocrite.

Google: The Global Positioning System (GPS) is made up of satellites, GROUND STATIONS, and receivers. GPS is a system. ... Once the receiver calculates its distance from four or more satellites, it knows exactly where you are."

What is a satellite? Is Google Loon a satellite? Is the Sun a satellite?