/sci/ - Science & Math

But why is the moon round?

>>9505313
it's a disk

>>9505313

You only see one "side" of it, so how can you know what its true shape is?

>>9505324

How can I see only one side of it when it's a disk?

>>9505314
>>9505324

The way the phases exactly match what you would see if the moon was a sphere where science says it is, lit by a sun that is exactly where science says it is, argues that you are wrong.

Also, we see a bit more of the surface of the moon than you think. Because the rotation is at a constant rate, but the moon moves slower in its orbit at apogee and faster at perigee, it tilts back and forth a bit every month, giving us a view around the spherical surface

>>9505332
Ah yes, the infallible holy bible that is "muh science". Quite anti-science honestly.

>>9505328

>The way the phases exactly match what you would see if the moon was a sphere where science says it is

They don't always match brainlet, especially when you can see the both the sun and moon in the day time.

If the moon was being lit by the sun, then the shadow being cast on the moon would move as the sun (and moon) moved, but it remains perfectly static throughout. Explain that one.

>>9505368
except, the sun doesn't move

>>9505342
You don't even need to believe him. There are time lapse photographs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Lunation_animation_April_2007.gif

Wow, so Space X used Earth pics you can find using google? They are retarded...

>>9505385
lmao, that the exact same pic.
I wonder what flat earther's next move will be

>>9505308
Why would they film it in front of a projected screen, it's not the 50s anymore

Obvious b8 post, but I can't wrap my head around how people think these things *must* be faked, yet at the same time were faked so poorly or sloppily that even a simple layman could figure it out. Like, there's this giant conspiracy to deceive the the populace but they somehow can't even get their hands on some decent special effects. Even Musk said we have way better CGI that we could fake this shit with.

>>9505424
Trust me, I work for SpaceX and my dad still thinks the Earth is flat. It's maddening.

>>9505379
>except, the sun doesn't move

Yeah, okay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

>>9505461

The sun on a flat earth would never set at all.

It would be visible even during the night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

>>9505308
Why the fuck is the car hanging on strings when the bottom of the car in reality was 1: never shown and 2: attached to the fairing adapter which was attached to stage 2. I mean you literally could not be more retarded by putting this thing on strings instead of just on a fairing adapter looking base

>>9505573

See:
>>9505385

>>9505593
The fuck does a picture of the Earth have to do with the decision to hang a car from the ceiling?

>>9505381
I could make something more convincing in blender

>>9505368

Yeah but why is the moon a disk and why can't I see the other side of it? It moves around right? So I should be able to see what's on the other side once it passes above me.

>>9505606
You were proving fake the OP image. That post you were linked too does the same.

>>9505481
>doesn't understand how perspective works
>thinks (visible) light travels forever in an atmosphere

When you look out at sea, you see the water and the sky meet at the horizon line, but the sky is not lower than you, it's just your perspective forcing things into the distance to converge at a central point equal to your eye level.

With this in mind, imagine a local sun that can only light up a certain portion of the earth at once, and as it moves around the earth, it will appear to get smaller and disappear to some people, and will appear to get larger and rise as it gets closer to other people.

>>9505745
Why doesn't it shrink all the way to a point then, it's still a dece sized circle when it disappears.

>>9505745
I know you're memeing, but I'm autistic so...
When is the last time you saw the Sun get smaller or even change apparent size at all? Why can anyone with a telescope observe Jupiter and its moons behave exactly as they would if they were spheres governed by gravity? How do you explain lunar libration?

>>9505847

Because there's shit in the way blocking it. The higher you go, the longer you can see it for.

>>9505883

I try not to stare at the sun for very long, but if you can observe it with a clear line of site, you will see it change size.

>Why can anyone with a telescope observe Jupiter and its moons behave exactly as they would if they were spheres governed by gravity?

Where's your scientific experiment to prove that's how spheres behave governed by gravity?

>How do you explain lunar libration?

There haven't been any experiments to find out. But people still have no problem saying it's gravity.

>>9506064
You should stare at the sun longer buddy

>>9505308
>multiple light sources
Nice try.

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Go to February 7, 7:00am.
Compare the clouds to the cloud cover of this image.

>>9506136
Oh, in the options menu change the timezone to JST first.
I didn't realize it was using my PC time (which is JST) by default.

>>9505745
This is so easily tested though. If it's really happening then the sun should change in angular size over the day, and its speed across the sky should also change. Just get a solar filter and a theodolite or something and see if this is the case (hint: it isn't).

I mean if you really think you have come across such a revolutionary idea that would change how we think about the world shouldn't you at least try a basic experiment to confirm it?

>>9506157
Even easier, the Moon would do the same thing and we can easily observe the true size of the Moon with the naked eye.

It doesn't change, and Flat Earthers never use the Moon as an example because it doesn't.

>>9506136
nice

They didn't even need a studio, it was a fucking toy car.

>>9506136
>implying they didnt get the picture from there

>>9506336
I knew that's what you would say.
Of course the problem is that Himawari 8 is a geosync satellite so it offers a fixed angle only so the only way to take it from there and use it would be to *gasp* overlay it on a globe.

And of course accepting Himawari 8 as a source would also mean accepting a geosync satellite taking high resolution images of the whole side of the planet it is facing every 10 minutes.

>>9506362
It is really simple.

The pictures on that website are fed to them by the elite. All of the pictures have been photoshopped on to a globe to confuse people.

The reality is that the earth is flat, but the elite is keeping us from knowing it.

If the earth is flat why doesn't an east facing windowsill in a high rise building ever cast a shadow on the opposite wall higher up than it at the break of dawn. It should if the sun is rising over a flat earth.

>>9506373
Why would "da gubment luminarty" do that though?
Take a note that if you spout any religious bullshit your opinion is nullified.

>>9506444
Why are you wasting your time arguing with me?

I am shitposting fyi, enjoy your night.

>>9506373
>The pictures on that website are fed to them by the elite. All of the pictures have been photoshopped on to a globe to confuse people.
Which is why they match cloud patterns that can be observed by everyone in that side of the planet, clearly gathered by photos and video from millions of weather balloons and aircraft so they can composite new images every 10 minutes.

>>9505308
Can this been any more obvious of a shoop?

>>9506064
>I deny facts that's literally anyone can easily observe to larp on a Marian car launching website.

>>9506064
>Where's your scientific experiment to prove that's how spheres behave governed by gravity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Can't say I have seen a flat earth explanation for the Cavendish experiment yet. I guess they would use electromagnetism as an excuse but that excuse is kinda shaky when you can't demonstrate the materials being attracted to magnets or having magnetic properties.

>>9505627
Do it then, and post it here.

>>9506808
Pic de Finestrelles is 2.826 m high, Pic Gaspard is 3.883 m high, the distance is 443 Km. The radius of the earth is 6.371 Km and we have a refractive index of 1,2, which makes a corrected virtual radius of 7.645,2 Km. Let's use trigonometry to find out if we can see Pic Gaspard from Pic de Finestrelles:

>>9505627
Do it faggot and then post your crypto adress

>>9506738
not him but that shit got done yesterday - all practical effects, too.

what about all software engineers working on their flight software? are do they not see rockets fly in the sky themselves? and just believe in bogus camera logs?

>>9505308

>>9506812
Why the fuck this shit doesn't allow me to post my calculations? "our system thinks your post is spam", it's just numbers with signs, luckily we are on the mathematics and science board, what a retarded page.

>>9506870
Whatever, using trigonometry you will be able to see 268,759 m of Pic Gaspard and 3.614,241 m of the mountain are hidden behind the horizon

>>9506835
this

>>9506835
it's builshit, youre trying to go too deep

>>9506835
>>9506879
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/

>>9506906
doesnt answer the question

>>9506197
beautiful

>>9505308
>The earth is flat because jewish mythology says that and I saw a few videos on youtube xddd

>>9506831
that´s just a screen cap of spacex video you dumb fuck

>>9505308
I don't think I'm flat so why would the Earth be?

If you have the attention span to sit through years of class during the best years of your life, you also have the attention span to read and watch at least some of Eric Dubay's content

>>9507231
*gasp* its almost as if the image was stitched together from multiple images, like in hundreds of other NASA images.

https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
>Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet.

>>9507245
the spacing of those clouds totally looks like stitched together photography, how they repeat only at consistent distances. not copy pasta at all, who would even see that

>>9506707

Cavendish used lead balls - of course electromagnetism will play a role. Do the same experiment using concrete balls and see what happens.

>>9507231
>>9507245
>>9507272
Who cares? We have full shots every 10 minutes (during daylight hours) that aren't composites from here >>9506136
And it even has images available generated from the IR bands.

Good luck finding your anomalies in this.

>>9507245

Official NASA image has SEX written in the clouds...

>>9507297
>https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Oh wow you have a weather balloon taking pics of the clouds and then mapping it onto a sphere. The sphere is clearly CGI, and remarkably doesn't look like an oblate spheroid either.

>>9507331
>its perfectly circular because i say it is

>>9507429

"It's... it's kinda pear shaped..." ~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson

>>9505308
>EARTH.IS.FLAT.
EARTHchan isn't flat

>>9507323
Confirmation bias, you can also have it spell JFY or whatever if you want it to. And even if does, it's little more than some fuckers having themselves a dumb joke, I don't get how this is supposed to prove anything

>>9507440
This is so dumb, flat earthers bring this up so often, because they expect the earth to be literally pear shaped

>>9507323
>Official NASA image has SEX written in the clouds
>SEX

>>9507479
It's all one big joke, you're right about that. Look at Pluto for example.

>This is so dumb, flat earthers bring this up so often, because they expect the earth to be literally pear shaped

It doesn't have to be completely pear shaped, but it should at least show some similarities to a pear shape otherwise he's talking shit. And then people like you look stupid trying to defend him.

>>9505308
Earth chan is not flat

>>9507486
>>9507489

I don't have any scientific refutations so I will post a forced meme instead.

>>9507485
Gonna take your bait.
As I said, it doesn't prove anything.
A lot of flat earth misconceptions can be explained by people being too stupid to understand either perspective or scale, this issue is the latter:
The difference between the polar and equatorial radius is only about 20km, so it's technically not a sphere, but you won't notice a difference that small from orbit.
Why do conspiracy theorists always take everything literally?

>>9507505
>>9507485
Forgot the Source: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Though obviously this is all made up data by "them"

It's all well and good trying to disprove the round Earth model, but as the flat Earth model is about as useful as a chocolate teapot for making any kind of prediction people are going to keep assuming the Earth's a sphere. You need to give us something that has some kind of practical purpose if you want people to care for your model.

>>9507505

>It's an oblate spheroid but we can't notice it
>The earth is spinning but we can't notice it
>The earth is wobbling but we can't notice it
>The earth is orbiting the sun but can't notice it

Your model is full of things that we can't prove with our own senses, and yet we just supposed to blindly believe this shit. Don't say we can't trust our senses because they are what keep us alive.

>>9507514
It helps you break the government's conditioning, find your way to god and depends on whose model you like most maybe find all those worlds and resources beyond the antarctic rim or some shit like that

>>9507520
>look at a sunset
>look at boats going over the horizont
>look at some planets in the sky
>go outside more than once a year and notice how we have seasons
>Look up Trade Winds

If every scientist would have to first confirm everything relevant to him "with his own senses" before believing it, I doubt there'd be an internet you could roleplay as a flat earther on

>>9507505

Sunsets are explained via perspective + the sun moving closer and further away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

>look at boats going over the horizont

Boats come back into view when zoom in on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0sJYaMrUc4

>look at some planets in the sky

They work on a flat earth. Why do you think they're called 'planes'?

>look at some planets in the sky

What about them? They move around us like every other celestial thing in the sky.

>go outside more than once a year and notice how we have seasons

Seasons work on a flat plane too.

>Look up Trade Winds

Winds blow in directions, proves nothing

>>9507576
The sun doesn't actually get smaller when it sets though (except on video, due to it's brightness) and disappears bottom first, same goes for ships. Also if the sun just moves far away, how come I can see stars at night, but not the sun?
On a flat earth the Sun and the planets would have to go in all sorts of weird paths in order to account for what we're observing, the whole spinning ball with a titled axis thing makes a little more sense don't you think?
>Winds all move in the same direction for some reason, which can be easily explained by the earth's rotation
fixed it for you

>>9507522
>It helps you break the government's conditioning, find your way to god and depends on whose model you like most maybe find all those worlds and resources beyond the antarctic rim or some shit like that

Practical purposes, not just feel good things. Finding god's all well and good, but he's notoriously bad at telling you things like when the next sunrise or eclipse will be.

And I'm not sure about other worlds and resources. All that should be out there is ice, hence the 'ice' wall. I've yet to see any attempt to derive expected geology from the flat Earth model.

>>9507291
The same.

>>9507683
'twas merely a jest

>>9507693
sauce nao

>>9507694
Sauce:
https://twitter.com/hews__/status/950953544818937856

https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=66737465

>>9507693
Logically Earth-chan would be a 28-year old Han Chinese male. Now stop spamming and fuck off.

>>9507615

The sun is much closer than 93 million miles away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN8yhUzqLCA

You can see the stars because they are also much closer.

>the Sun and the planets would have to go in all sorts of weird paths in order to account for what we're observing

No they wouldn't, they just circle around the flat plane. The stars and planets would be making vastly more random movements if the heliocentric model was true (earth spinning, earth orbiting sun, sun orbiting galaxy).

>Winds all move in the same direction

Put the meth pipe down.

>>9507746
then fly with a drone into that "Sun" you absolute retard and see what happens

>>9507483

>>9507746
Wait, so are you telling me, that the stars are closer than the sun?
>The stars and planets would be making vastly more random movements if the heliocentric model was true
Once again a clear case of not understanding scale
>Put the meth pipe down
Sure, once you pass your 8th grade geography exam

>>9507687

So that's settled then...

>>9507763

Keep thinking it's 93 million miles away you fucking dip

>>9507776
>Wait, so are you telling me, that the stars are closer than the sun?

That's what logically follows, yes. Unless the stars are made of some special type of light that can travel further.

>Once again a clear case of not understanding scale

Scale doesn't matter when we're talking about so many movements happening at once. You have the earth spinning and wobbling slightly, you then have an elliptical orbit around the sun that gets faster and slower, you then have sun orbiting the galaxy at 514,000mph and yet the north star remains in the exact same place, day in, day out. Don't give me this shit about scale, that does not sufficiently explain it at all. Evidence is required for such claims, of which you have none.

>>9506197
Why do the Australians get that big continent all to themselves?

>>9507798
You just show that you still can't grasp scale of things. How big universe really is.

>>9507798
>Unless the stars are made of some special type of light that can travel further.
Your fanfictions starts getting ridiculous man.
>Scale doesn't matter
No, it does that's my point

>>9507798
Why wouldn't polaris stay in the same place? We're not moving fast enough for its position to change.

>>9507813

Is that you Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Come back to reality you fucking pseudo-intellectual shill.

>>9507814

>Your fanfictions starts getting ridiculous man.

Unlike globalists, I don't posit ideas like that as fact, until it can be demonstrated scientifically.

>No, it does that's my point

Where's the damn evidence then? Show me a working model that has all these movements happening at the same time.

>>9507821

Because of all of the multiple movements we are making. "We're not moving fast enough for its position to change" is a cop out argument because there's no proof of this. If I look at a star at night and move my head around, the star will move with it, in opposite directions. Parallax only really works with two objects parallel to each other going left to right - that's not what's happening in the heliocentric model.

>>9507831
>I don't posit ideas like that as fact
That's a step in the right direction, keep it up
>Show me a working model that has all these movements happening at the same time.
Come on man, you can't be that stupid. By that logic I can prove, that last time I went to the supermarket I actually didn't move, because when I got there, the sun was still in the same spot in the sky

>>9507831

Why is the Moon a disk tho and why can't I see the other side of it if it's moving above our plane?

>>9507831

Look up parallax.

>>9507859
>>9507859

>the sun was still in the same spot in the sky

It's not though is it? Do you actually think that the movement in >>9505745 is due to earth's rotation? Come on you must see how silly that is...

>>9507802
They only really use the coast, the mainland is pretty uninhabitable.

>>9507874
No what I mean is that if I'mm standing right in front of my chair and walk 10 steps to the left, the chair is now clearly to my right.
If I'm looking straight at the sun and walk 10 steps to the right, I'm still looking straight at the sun. it's so far away, that the angle towards it changes so little, I can't notice it.

>>9505324
But I’ve seen the moon during New Moon phase. It’s hard but you can make out craters with a telescope and a sufficiently dark area.

>>9507883
what are those tiny red dots near the center?

>>9507862

We don't really know what the moon is. You can't see the other side for the same reason you can't on the globe model, it's always facing us.

>>9507863

Parallax doesn't apply in the heliocentric model. If you were at the north pole looking directly up at polaris, and then you flew to the equator, still looking at polaris, you would see it move in the sky, even though you're apparently moving such a minute distance away from it.

>>9507893

How do you know they're craters, and why do craters prove anything?

why is the azimuthal projection less distorted land masses than a Mercator projection

>>9507941

Because of gravity.

>>9507874
>Do you actually think the movement in...
Spin around in a circle, suddenly the sun is moving in a circle around you at 300% the speed of light!

If the sun doesn't move when you spin, why should it move when you spin with the Earth? Simple: because you are fucking retarded.

>>9507914
>you would see it move in the sky, even though you're apparently moving such a minute distance away from it
Wrong. You would see the sky basically maintain the same configuration while the ENTIRE sky seems to move all in the same direction all at once. This is because you are changing your perspective. This is not parallax.

Parallax is something entirely different

>>9507983
What are you babbling about brainlet? You question doesn't make any sense.

>>9508003

Orbiting the sun changes your perspective of the universe does it not?

>>9507914

>You can't see the other side for the same reason you can't on the globe model, it's always facing us.

But that makes no sense. If it's above a flat plane I should be able to see it from different sides. Show me some maps of a flat Earth. There has to be points where the Moon is directly overhead. Where are the photographs of this phenomena?

>>9508019
I asked if you think the quick circling motion of the sun around you in a circle is the result of you spinning in a circle. Just as you asked if the much slower circling of the sun around the Earth is the result of the Earth spinning in a circle.

>>9508021
No. If you stand on the north pole, and rotate against the Earth's rotation, the sky (ignoring the planets, sun, and the moon) will seemingly remain stationary year round.

Any measurable change (assuming precise enough instrumentation) in the appearance of the stars in the sky would be due to parallax, not perspective shift. This change would manifest itself by making constellations appear to variably change in size and shape.

>>9508036

The heliocentric model puts movement of the sun in the sky down mainly to our axial spin. Does the movement of the sun look like it's caused by a rotation of the earth?

>>9508127
Yes.

If you spin in a circle, the movement of the sun (and the Earth) would mainly be due you your axial spin. So, does the movement of the sun (assuming you did start spinning) look like it's caused by a rotation of you.

>>9508145

Draw an arrow in the direction you think the earth is spinning here.

>>9505308
Wow, OP, you're so edgy and cool and smart.
Your humor is so subtle and original.
You must become our new leader.

>>9508158
This was actually the perfect example. A google search showed me this was taken at the Tyrrhenian sea. Which means it's pretty near the equator. The X would be standing on the equator and looking north towards the pole. Meaning to the left of the photo would be West, to the right, East. The arrow shows which way the earth is rotating.

>>9508158
the earth doesnt spin, its been proven

>>9508203

>>9508212
In a period of 24 hours the earths rotates 360 degrees about it's axis while it completed less than a degree of a rotation around the sun (and much less than a degree around the milky way).

So ya, everything in your pic seems reasonable.

>>9508190
Does the heliocentric model give the spin of rotation like that?

>>9507520
>You're alive, but I can't notice it
>Means you're not alive
Great logic there Einstein.
Also, we can notice every one of those things you mentioned through different means. Noticing it doesn't mean it has to be visible "with the naked eye".

>>9508330

You can notice it you blithering fool, otherwise what's the point in posting?

>Noticing it doesn't mean it has to be visible "with the naked eye".

When it comes to the supposed movements of the earth, it bloody well should be confirmed by our senses. Science begins with what is observed with our senses, then you can go on to try and describe it. Rotation of the earth is NOT observed by our senses, looking at the sky is NOT the earth. You can't then make up some theoretical shit to things we can't actually observe with our senses and say "that's reality". That's fucking sci-fi.

>>9507212
He's not dumb.
He got you to respond.
That's what it's all about.

>>9508364
Please.
If every science discovery was just about "I can sense it" then we would not know much.
Going by your logic math is just mostly magic, because you cannot "sense" it, it's theoretical, and can be applied to the real world as the means of understanding it's mechanism.
If you would just describe things then we would have definitions like "Wind is something invisible that travels in differing speeds"
By the way:
>Looking at the sky is NOT the earth
What are fucking satellites?
Also, you can get to know a lot about the Earth by looking at the sky, and that is something that even people in Ancient Greece knew, but you somehow can't wrap your fucking head around it.

>>9507914

You clearly have not understood parallax. Stop using stupid people as a point of reference.

>>9508252
Jesus Christ, first what fucking angle is that lens? I'm seeing enough signs to suggest it's showing around a 180 degree view, heavily corrected.

>>9507520
>Your model is full of things that we can't prove with our own senses, and yet we just supposed to blindly believe this shit.
Why do people think that their senses are some kind of baseline for proving things?
Do you believe the composition of air? You can't smell or taste oxygen. Do you believe we actually breathe oxygen? All the tanks that you buy saying oxygen on them could be something else. You can't prove it with your senses.

>>9507576
>Sunsets are explained via perspective + the sun moving closer and further away
But the Moon rises and sets at the same size as it moves across the sky because it's special and governed by a different rule because it doesn't work otherwise.

>What about them? They move around us like every other celestial thing in the sky.
>what is retrograde motion
Something that confused the fuck out of the ancient civilizations and only made sense once placed into a heliocentric model.

>Seasons work on a flat plane too.
Because magic moves the Sun back and forth over the plane for you. Why it moves within its limits, no one knows. I know you would say the same about gravity but the thing there is that with gravity we can make predictions and then attempt to observe those predictions, but you don't trust those observations because you can't make them yourself.

>>9507494
You have plenty eh you fucking sperg brainlet cunt

>>9505324
but that's wrong

I saw a flat earther trying to explain the view of the stars from the southern hemisphere, the clockwise rotation around the south celestial pole and different constellations, and it was terrible.

First his explanation for the northern hemisphere is that all the stars are on a rotating disk above the plane of the Earth and the stars you can see is sort of bowl shaped around you (for some reason) so when you stand on the north pole the north star is directly above and when you move from the north pole that bowl shape rotates with the top still pointing to the north star so when you reach the equator the bowl is effectively 90 degrees rotated.

But when it comes to the southern hemisphere he abandons the bowl and uses the example of anti-crepuscular rays leading to a vanishing point as an explanation for the southern celestial pole and the clockwise rotation, which he demonstrates with an animation of rotating the sun and thus the crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays and then with a practical demonstration using a tube to rotate both ends of the rays at the same time. But then you realize that if you placed the stars on a sphere around that tube and put a sphere in the middle of the tube instead it would match what we see and be a demonstration of the globe earth model.

Also, anti-crepuscular rays have the same light source as crepuscular rays but the stars we see around the southern celestial pole are different from the northern celestial pole. They are different light sources so how does it relate to crepuscular rays at all?

There's a lot more in it that doesn't make any sense so view at your own peril.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWsvHOyHMc8

>>9509412
nice brain cancer they have there

>>9509412
>that video
Why are the southern and northern stars and constellations different?

Why can't flat earthers do basic math and physics problems?

They love to theorize based on their retarded "logic", but when it comes to show proof in the form of mathematics they fail miserably.