/sci/ - Science & Math

Anyone who disagrees with "correct and incomplete description of reality" should read Isaac Asimov's Relativity of Wrong.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>>9744806
>correct and incomplete
No such thing.

>>9744806
You're right but you forgot this one:
There is a countable infinity of genders

>>9744814

All of these statements are correct by definition but that's also the problem.

How do we know if the definition is correct?

>>9744809
I have only read to:
>However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

I totally agree and I think he makes the point perfectly and I want to add that I feel that somewhere along the way of scientific development of humanity, binary reasoning has established itself as the only valid form of proof. Either something exists because it's provable or it does not exist because it's not provable.

Yet most, if not all, calculations used to create technology are nothing but approximations. Incredibly precise ofc but never absolute.

To add my 2cents: I know how binary logic works and I know it's mathematical definition. After personal research I have found out that ternary logic does also work but because of it's complexity is harder to implement physically. It is possible though! Not only that, it might even be more efficient than dual reasoning. (wiki: Radix Economy)

ps: I don't like that you use clickbait to promote this post. Using sexual arousal to attract attention is a pretty cheap practise.

Vaccines aren’t necessarily “safe”, but whatever harm they cause is definitely outweighed by the benefits.

>>9744806
Also: Arguing with a mainstream scientific theory requires a bit more work than saying "m-muh aether"

It's like this: A stable has an invisible unicorn. Nobody wanted to believe there was an invisible unicorn at first, but five people got stabbed and some guy named Paul managed to ride the unicorn. Sonars and infrared clearly show that there's a perfectly unicorn-shaped object in the stable, it's just invisible. Food disappears and glittery shit falls on the floor. Despite intuition saying there shouldn't be a pink unicorn, everyone's reluctantly agreed that yes, the invisible unicorn is a thing that we have to deal with the existence of now.

Then, Anon comes in. Anon thinks invisible unicorn theory is wrong. Why? Well, because nobody can tell what color the unicorn is. Anon insists that it's mauve, and further insists that this invalidates every other observation about the unicorn. Anon refuses to leave. Anon is shouting very loudly. Someone should really punch anon.

>>9744885
Inb4 aether theorists hop on the fact that I mistakenly wrote "pink" instead of "invisible" once there

>>9744885
>Someone should really punch anon.
Agreed.

>>9744881
>Vaccines aren’t necessarily “safe”, but whatever harm they cause is definitely outweighed by the benefits.
They're as safe as any other kind of medicine that antivaxxers happily consume. And a lot safer than unregulated "alternative" treatments.

>>9744806
>Implying Political pressure cannot influence Scientific consensus
What is Lysenkoism

>>9744806
>Big Bang cosmology is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
WRONG.
arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354
> Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, free energy generators and the like can not and will never work.
This one is also false. The concept of perpetuum mobile supposes closed system, while closed systems are not possible, and this is the only reason for pm to be impossible, but who needs closed systems in the first place

I'm not sure about the climate and posted this image just fur die lulz but I'm sure that the definition of the problem clouds the issue of carbon in the atmosphere, and to solve it we have to plant more trees, because those fuckers can solve this problem.

Meanwhile in the 1600s:

Newtonian mechanics is completely infallible.

Sickness is caused by Miasmic bad air

Spontaneous generation creates creatures.

The Earth's continents don't move.

Royalty has the divine right to rule.

Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers anyway *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment where it should outperform current scientific theory.

>>9744806
>ATTN: This is a public service announcement from the Cult of Science.

You're wrong about everything, by the way.

>>9745344
That's literally exactly what they did when proving the established theories wrong though.

>Newtonian mechanics
Had to be wrong when Maxwell's equations predicted a constant speed of light, but aether measuring experiments failed to find any "true rest frame", but can be shown to be a reasonable approximation of relativity by series expansion

>Sickness caused by miasmic bad air
Disproven by the discovery of microbes, literally just look at them in a microscope. Approximately correct in that being near things where microbes grow increases exposure to them.

>Spontaneous generation creates creatures
Tested experimentally by isolating a sample of sterile dirt and then waiting, unsurprisingly nothing happened. Approximately correct in that the eggs of a lot of small creatures are hard to spot.

>The earth's continents don't move
Approximately correct on short timescales, disproven by archaeological evidence

>Royalty has the divine right to rule
Disproven by chopping the heads of entire royal families and not immediately being struck by lightning from an angry deity. Approximately correct in that destabilizing the ruling structure of a country has severe consequences, but this doesn't necessarily demand that they are royalty.

>>9744806
Thank you for this friend.

>>9744812
Brainlet spotted.

It's perfectly possible to have a truthful, yet only fraction of a complete story.

>>9745220
>completely theoretical paper published in 2014 by two Russians
>cited 15 times
lol

also
>2nd law of thermodynamics is a law because it's always true, not only when you want it to be

lastly
>citing a historical situation similar to a current one is not evidence against current quantitative evidence

>>9745356
Posting this to avoid the potential truth of you being this retarded.

>>9744806
>correct and incomplete
<grammar_nazi_mode>
Should be "correct BUT incomplete"
</grammar_nazi_mode>

>>9745385
Keep avoiding the truth that I'm right.

>>9744895
The vaccine schedule should definitely be extended. There's no reason to pump kids full of adjuvants containing aluminum in the short time frames currently recommended and given. Vaccines are great and lifesaving, but they way we implement them should be open to criticism.

>>9745390
If you're right then the electronic device you're using to spread your retardation across the internet is just as much of the product of a cult as the dead bodies that result from the poisoned cool-aid that I'd wish your parents had drank before they shit you out.

>>9745399
You have a problem with aluminum in vaccines but you have no problem with the aluminum in your food?

>>9745409
No it isn't brainlet, electromagnetism is the real shit, not your faggy globe, gravity, climate change etc.

>>9745413
Never did I mention food. I only mentioned aluminum in vaccines. I didn't even suggest it was something that needs to be eliminated entirely. I suggested that the schedule should be extended to allow younger bodies more time to metabolize intramuscualarly injected aluminum salts.

>>9745437
Ok yeah it's becoming clear that I fell for the bait and you really aren't this stupid after all. I'm actually relieved. Good bait friend.

>>9745450
But your reasoning for wanting to extend the timescale is the aluminum in vaccines.
I mentioned food because plenty of food products contain aluminum in similar or greater proportions than vaccines, and yet you have no problem with consuming this food on shorter timescales than vaccinations.

That's why I mention the food. You're worried about getting wet from rain while swimming in the ocean. It doesn't make sense.

>>9745452
Computers rely on a completely different subset of science that doesn't belong in the science cult like gravity et al.

>>9745465
Fine then, replace "computers" with anything from the following list and my previous post stands:

Satellites, GPS navigation, eclipse predictions and observations, literally any machine in which the gravitational force is an important factor (your fucking car for example)

>>9745465
Not to mention the laws of electromagnetism and its conflict with classical mechanics are what lead to special relativity, whose conflicts with Newtonian gravitation lead to general relativity.

You can't accept modern electromagnetism while rejecting modern gravitation, unless you just want to be one of those faggots that think everything is an opinion an therefore your thought process is valid just for existing.

>>9745459
Young children have smaller bodies and developing brains, so the dosage is rather high in proportion to what an adult can safely ingest, and thats in addition to the aluminum naturally ingested. You combine the two and it's not hard to see why the vaccine schedule should be extended. Aluminum has been shown to play a role in the formation of Alzeihmers later in life, but the effects of it on developing brains haven't been well studies.

It's really a no brainer thing. Extend the schedule to limit the amount of potential harm that can be done from excess aluminum at a young age. The prevelance of the diseases vaccinated against is already low, and doesn't need to be vaccinated against aggressively.

>>9745470
>Satellites, GPS navigation
Bouncing radio waves off the ionosflat, weather balloons, high altitude planes/drones. Also, 99% of communication happens in undersea cables.

>eclipse predictions and observations
Not hard, works on a flat earth as well.

>literally any machine in which the gravitational force
I thought gravity wasn't a force?

> the year is 1650
> the aether is the correct but incomplete model of planetary motion, gravity and light propagation!!

>>9745474
>the laws of electromagnetism and its conflict with classical mechanics
Classical mechanics was wrong, and therefore so is relativity in both its forms.

>>9745358
And what happens when technology advances and we find evidence for better theories? How can you possibly claim to know if our current theories are the end-all, be-all of truth, when you cannot predict the future, and you cannot peer into the past. I currently believe in most things listed, however, because there hasn't been any better theories given, yet I do not disparage people who seek to find such theories. I cannot say my views are correct with absolute certainty, and neither can you. If somebody creates an illogical theory, you can dispute it and not convert your views, but do not give out foolish appeals to authority, trapping people into the zeitgeist.

>>9745485
It's funny you mention that because the foods with the highest concentration of aluminum are baby products, including natural breast milk.

>>9745488
If you're referring to cell phones, then yes, it almost exclusively happens via undersea cables. Satellite phones are the exception. However, the GPS in your car has fuck all to do with undersea cables.

No it doesn't. Flattards living on Flattardia haven't got a fucking clue how eclipses work, how to use basic geometry to figure out when they will happen, nor do they have any fucking idea why all of celestial mechanics is completely consistent with Earth being spheroidal and orbiting the sun.

Lastly, pic related. Debating semantics is not a substitute for an actual argument.

>>9745491
But it wasn't correct, as the experiments by Michaelson and Morley showed.

These were all suggestions to explain reality with no actual consequences investigated by experimentation.

>>9745496
Then the superior theories are scrutinized deeply, tested by experiments and, if they persist, adopted by mainstream science. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist.

Nobody who's actually familiar with the real standard model, for example, will claim that it's the end-all, be-all truth, because we know for a fact that it doesn't play well with gravity.

HOWEVER

The claim at the start of this thread, "Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers anyway *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment where it should outperform current scientific theory," still applies. The current theories displaced past theories because they were better according to those criteria. Future theories will displace the current ones for the same reason. A random anon shouting "MUH AETHER MUH AETHER MUH AETHER" on a zimbabwese pottery board will not displace current theories, especially because aether theory is hundreds of years old and went nowhere.

>>9745494
No, classical mechanics is approximately correct for small masses and small velocities. It breaks down with electromagnetism because EM waves travel at the speed of light, which are too fast for classical mechanics to be approximately correct. In one sentence, Maxwell's equations are not Gallilean invariant.

Relativity is not classical mechanics. Relativity fills the gaps where classical mechanics is only partially correct. All of classical mechanics can be derived from the relativistic corrections, and all modern experiments give the results that relativity predicts. We only think relativity is wrong because it's logically incompatible with quantum mechanics, which also yields predictions that agree to within all experiments to date.

Fucking electromagnetism is more classical than relativity.

>>9744806
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct
>Special and General Relativity are correct
Why are you so sure about that?
All our previous theories turned out to be nothing more then approximation, why it is different this time?

I think that your notion of "correct" is very flawed, you are asserting some truth value, which obviously no scientist could ever claim about any of his theories.
Do you mean by "correct" "fits the data" or do you mean "true".

>>9745558
What the poster tried to tell you was that in science you always should be able to except that what is "know" right now might turn out to be false, you had to be extremely arrogant that "right now" this couldn't be the case.

>>9745572
"Correct" is a shorthand for "Good enough to make useful predictions and not in conflict with any experimental evidence as of yet"

You're willfully ignoring the "and incomplete" part, though.

>>9745577
>"Correct" is a shorthand for "Good enough to make useful predictions and not in conflict with any experimental evidence as of yet"
Okay, that makes your post pretty accurate.

>You're willfully ignoring the "and incomplete" part, though.
No I am not, I didn't see the point in addressing it.

>>9745572
I'm not sure about it, I'm saying that both are consistent with experiments done in each regime.

Quantum mechanics and Relativity are likely both approximations to a more fundamental theory. It's probably not different this time.

Every time a new theory emerges and is consistent with all experiments done up to that time, then the ONLY way to know for sure whether or not is correct is to do more experiments with the goal of falsifying the theory. That is the scientific method.
So are the theories true? Every experiment we have done SO FAR says yes. Are they complete? Not likely, but we won't know until an experiment yields results that deviate from theoretical predictions by at least 5 sigma.

A note on my semantics: "true" and "correct" I have taken to be synonyms. They both mean they agree with any and all empirical evidence we have at the moment. "Complete" means that it is true/correct FOR ALL experiments that can be performed.

By this definition, science will likely never be complete because, sadly, the universe is under no obligation to make her mysteries apparent to us. There are likely some constraints we can never lift, some fundamental limits to our ability to observe that will prevent us from deriving a complete theory.

>>9745602
Okay, then I don't disagree with your post.

But I find:
>A note on my semantics: "true" and "correct" I have taken to be synonyms.
Not a good definition.
If a theory is "true", I would say that it will make the perfect predictions for all experiments.

>>9745602
>There are likely some constraints we can never lift, some fundamental limits to our ability to observe that will prevent us from deriving a complete theory.

the even sadder truth is that we might never know that for sure

>>9745618
That's fine, you can have your own definitions, as long as you are consistent and make them clear.

>>9745556
You think the GPS in your car is in direct contact with satellites? Where's your proof, please?

>Flattards living on Flattardia haven't got a fucking clue how eclipses work, how to use basic geometry to figure out when they will happen, nor do they have any fucking idea why all of celestial mechanics is completely consistent with Earth being spheroidal and orbiting the sun.
It was done perfectly well for 1400 years until the globe cult came along. Can you show me emperical proof of the earth's curvature, actual physical measurements taken to prove its scientific validity? Or what about an empirical measurement measuring the spin of the earth itself, not the spin of other things like a Foucalt Pendulum which are really just following the sun and moon's magnetic fields (they don't work during solar eclipses), but the actual measurement of the earth's spin.

If you can provide that, I'll believe the globe model.

(1/3)

>>9745627
>Where's your proof?

And here it is. The inevitable conclusion of a debate with every flattard.
I don't think you really understand what "proof" really is or what it means.

Let me tell you a story as an example. I was at a science fair once at the physics table showing off some cool experiments. One of them was a light-sensitive screen. It was nothing special, just a toy for kids we had purchased. If you flashed a blue laser pen at it, it would leave a faint glow where the laser pointer was. You could use it to write your name, draw a picture, etc. on the screen using the light from the laser pen.

And then along came this one guy from the college of engineering, thinking he was the shit like he had it all figured out. He asked me to explain what was going on with it. I told him that the screen has a light-sensitive coating over it. The molecules in the coating have energy level gaps that are sensitive to particular frequencies of light, so when you shine laser light on it close to those frequencies, it will hold onto the photons for awhile before re-emitting them, which is what you see as the faint glow.
And his response was "oh.... and what are the practical applications of this?"

And I just sat there looking at him like he was an idiot. He laughed and said "you don't know any because you're not an engineer, you don't care about applications".

I told him "that's not it, I just can't believe you're so blind as to not see that I just showed you the practical application. Where do you think we got this? Do you think we just invented it in the lab and brought it over here? We bought this from a company that makes kids toys out of these. This "technology" made a company very rich. It brought economic benefit. That's about as practical as it gets."
He promptly walked away.

(2/3)

>>9745627
>>9745655

The reason I'm telling you this is because you're just like that guy. You keep throwing around this "where's the proof" nonsense like you understand logic better than anyone. When in reality, you have only an abstract concept of what proof is and you've manipulated it's definition to be whatever supports your ideal. You've rediscovered the confirmation bias and parade it around like it's the holy grail of science that not one has thought of before. When in reality, all of the proof you need is staring right at you in the face and you either choose to ignore it or are too stupid to recognize it.

Plenty of experiments have been around to prove that Earth is not only a globe, but cannot be flat in any sense of the word. You just choose to give more credence to the fact that you can't see the curvature of the Earth from the top of a building than any of these experiments. Spoiler alert, you can't see it because the Earth is really really really big.

I'm sorry that I can't name every experiment in existence that shows the Earth is round because I was convinced a long time ago and have since found more important things to question.
But the oldest experiment is Erostothanes' measurement of the radius of the Earth (which is suprisingly close to the actual value)!.

Another spoiler, the world "Geometry" literally means "Earth measurement", so it's rather ironic that flattards are so afraid of geometry.

If you want experiments you can do at your own leisure, I recommend just making a map of the stars you see at night in different locations on Earth. And not a few miles away, I mean in different continents. You will see that it is quite impossible to put them together in a flat Earth. You will, however, see that they fit together quite well on a globe.

Too lazy to travel yourself? No problem, just get your flattard buddies to take pictures for you.

>>9744806
>Special and General Relativity are correct...

Hollow are the Ori. We must all hail scientism.

>>9745655
>>9745672
What an incredible sidestep from the original two, very basic questions that were asked, you should be a politician.

The earth is a globe, therefore its curvature should be physically measurable, all I ask is where these measurements can be found? Where is this fundamental proof? The same goes for the rotation.

(3/3)

>>9745627
>>9745655
>>9745672

Even easier! Have your flattard buddies in different countries take pictures of the sun at the same time of day. Measure the angle between the horizon and the sun in each of the photos, and the direction in which each person is facing in order to see the sun.
You'll probably be scratching your head because you realize that not only are the angles different, but everyone is facing the same direction.
How could this be? In the flat earth model, the sun literally has to be in different places at the same time. Where in the globe, you can predict exactly where the sun will be at what time of day given your location no problem.
Why is that? Why is it that the flat earth model makes everything more complicated except for the one simple observation that the Earth LOOKS flat in small distances?
Because it's not, and it's incredibly naive to think that the Earth is flat.

I tell you all of these things and you won't take them to heart. That's why every debate with a flattard always ends with "where's the proof?". In reality, you will never make any attempt to put your beliefs to the test because you don't actually know what proof is. Any time someone posts a video "proving" the earth is flat, you take it as fact, and every time someone posts a video demonstrating the Earth is a globe, you say "conspiracy". That is, you have the world's strongest confirmation bias.

And that's why
>showing you the proof
Is completely fucking pointless because you'll just dismiss everything. You don't want proof against the flat earth model, you only want more bullshit.

>>9745689
Except I did answer your questions, I gave you several experiments by which to measure the curvature of the Earth. You just are too scientifically illiterate to be able to connect points A and B.

Take the last experiment. By measuring the angles at which the sun appears over the horizon depending on one's location, you can use the distance between each observer and the angle to find the Earth's curvature. It's a high school geometry problem.

>>9745689
Also, your use of the term "fundamental proof" is just showing off to everyone that you think science is about using a single piece of evidence to either prove or disprove theories. That is not how science works.

>>9745702
I don't think you understand the question, I want the measured curvature of the earth itself, not shadows. The shadows are not ultimate proof of curvature because they would do the same thing on a flat plane earth with a local sun. Stop deflecting and provide the meat and potatoes.

You're also conveniently ignoring the rotation as well.

>>9744812
You are a ""physicist"" who knows everything about gravity, but experiences a helium balloon for the first time in his life, then says "Well gravity does a good job at explaining a lot of things, but not this thing in particular. Oh well."

Fucking brainlet.

>>9745706
Would you consider that measuring the length of a plank of wood with a measuring device would be fundamental proof of its length, or is there a more fundamental measure like the shadow it creates when you introduce another variable in the mix, and this variable must be accurate in its own measurements, i.e. the sun's distance and size, because if these are wrong, then so will you measurement of the shadows. But what will never be wrong, what is more fundamental, is the earth itself, measure that please, I'm waiting.

>>9744806
You forgot [math] 0.\bar{9} = 1 [/math] cranks love to argue against this one.

>>9744806
The Earth is flat

The moon landings took place in a desert on the Earth

Quantum Mechanics is just made up

The standard model is hoax particles don't exist

Gravity doesn't exist so General Relativity is false. Special relativity is wrong too.

Big Bang never happened. God made everything

Darwinism never happened. The Earth is only 6000 year old.

Light-speed is a hoax.

God can make a perpetuum mobile, free energy, and anything else.

Climate change doesn't even happen.

Vaccines cause autism

I don't have to explain anything to you. You just need to read your bible more mister. Then everything will become clear.

>>9745710
First of all, the Earth's rotation is not fast enough to affect it's curvature too much.

Second of all, I'm not deflecting anything you have to say at all. You're asking me how to measure the curvature of the Earth and I told you. You just don't like it because it involves geometry.

And this is where I revert back to my story. You don't know what you are even asking for. You don't know what proof is. In this case, you don't know what it is you're expecting me to tell you.
How do you expect to measure the curvature of the Earth? How do you think any measurements are done? I'm sorry to inform you that shadows are a great indicator of the position of an object and that it's absolutely silly of you to disregard experiments that use shadows.


How about you instead tell me what do you consider "ultimate proof" of the curvature of the Earth? Maybe I can answer your question if you properly define what it is you want answered.

>>9745718
Ok, now you're just basically paraphrasing Plato at this point.

The Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter, and I'm sorry to say that there's no protractor large enough to even come close to measuring the curvature of a spheroid that large.

I don't understand why you are so fixated on measuring the Earth with a fucking ruler. Why is that more valid than the experiment I proposed?

Is is shadows you have a problem with, or light? Because I'm sorry to say that light is the way in which you're measuring something directly as well. When you put a measuring device, like a ruler, next to a plank of wood, there is light reflecting off both the wood and the measuring device, which is then picked up by your eyes and interpreted by your brain.


If you want to get philosophical, then I'm sorry to tell you that everything is an indirect measurement.

>>9745732
I hope you fall and crack your head on the side of your cheeto-encrusted desk as a result of slipping on a puddle of your own piss leaking from an imperfectly sealed piss bottle.

>>9744806
Think you got everyone man, good job!

>>9745771
>confronted with the TRUTH

>>9745756
>First of all, the Earth's rotation is not fast enough to affect it's curvature too much.
What? I'm not asking how it affects curvature, I want to see empirical proof of the earth's rotation.

>Second of all, I'm not deflecting anything you have to say at all. You're asking me how to measure the curvature of the Earth and I told you. You just don't like it because it involves geometry.
You are deflecting using geometry, I want science.

>You don't know what you are even asking for. You don't know what proof is.
Projection.

>How about you instead tell me what do you consider "ultimate proof" of the curvature of the Earth?
How do you measure the curve of a bowling ball? Do that, but scale it up to the earth.

>show me the evidence that the Earth is round!
>no, not that evidence! I don't like that evidence! show me different evidence!

>>9745800
actually though

>>9745689
Eratosthenes proved it you moron, he mentioned it on the comment. God damn, flat earthers are fucking dense

>>9745004
>Lysenkoism
From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist and president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943. Hermann Joseph Muller (and his teachings about genetics) was criticized as a bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist, and promoting fascism so he left the USSR, to return to the US via Republican Spain. In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience", all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued.

Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism at one time and overall, scientific research in genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined as well.

Are scientists being imprisoned for having controversial opinions, anon? Fuck no. Everyone is clamoring for a revolutionary breakthrough to make a name for themselves.
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers anyway *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment where it should outperform current scientific theory.
Substantial claims require substantial evidence.
Quit wearing that tin-foil hat, anon.

>>9745792
And about rotation, just from the top of my head, I think huricane routes are only explained by the effects of Coriolis acceleration, which is always present in revolution movements

>>9745792
>>9745792
>emprirical proof of the sun's rotation
The fucking sun rising and setting is your proof. You just don't like that proof.

>inb4 "but that can be explained in the flat earth model!"
fucking duh, but what you failed to consider is the problems that this model creates when trying to preserve your bullshit belief. See >>9745693

>you are deflecting using geometry
Yep, OK, there it is. You don't know what evidence is. I don't even think you know what science is. I'm sorry to inform you that math, geometry included, is a tool used in science all the time. In fact, many people consider math to be a science, which is debatable.

Here's a simple exercise for you: define "evidence", "proof", and "science". What do you think they mean? How do you think one goes about obtaining/practicing them?

>Projection
Now you're just throwing words out. What is your issue with this?
First of all, in my "measure the angle of the sun" post, there are no shadows. So I'm not even sure why we are talking about them.
Second, I find it ironic that you have such a problem with projection when your Flattard map is literally a projection of the Earth.

>How do you measure the curve of a bowling ball?
I honest to god do not know how you measure the curve of a bowling ball, please enlighten me. I don't think you are capable of articulating what you want non-flattards to do because all of these ideas you have in your head are nebulus, ill-formed concepts that are not well defined even in your own head. And then you take our inability to decipher what the fuck you want us to say as proof of the conspiracy.

>>9745808
Brainlet, shadows can only be accurate if the distance to the sun as well as its size is accurate, which it clearly is not.

>>9745824
>huricane routes
There we go again, focusing on the spin of something else rather than the earth itself. Coriolis effect is due to the magnetic field emitted from the celestial "bodies".

>>9745358
>but aether measuring experiments failed to find any "true rest frame"
they're not failed.

>jewish tricks 101 thread

>>9745834
>The fucking sun rising and setting is your proof. You just don't like that proof.
See >>9745837
Take your meds if you think that is a perfect representation of the heliocentric model in action.

>fucking duh, but what you failed to consider is the problems that this model creates when trying to preserve your bullshit belief. See >>9745693
You don't think how the sun works hasn't been answered a thousand times? The sun is local and moves closer and further away, the further away it gets, the more its light has to travel through the atmosphere, eventually turning to darkness once far away enough.

>Here's a simple exercise for you: define "evidence", "proof", and "science". What do you think they mean? How do you think one goes about obtaining/practicing them?
There's mathematical proof, which is independent to scientific proof, this is simple stuff brainlet.

>Second, I find it ironic that you have such a problem with projection when your Flattard map is literally a projection of the Earth.
Can you provide me with an accurate globe map? Oh wait that's right, there aren't any.

>I honest to god do not know how you measure the curve of a bowling ball, please enlighten me. I don't think you are capable of articulating what you want non-flattards to do because all of these ideas you have in your head are nebulus, ill-formed concepts that are not well defined even in your own head. And then you take our inability to decipher what the fuck you want us to say as proof of the conspiracy.
Did you know Kansas was measured to be flatter than a pancake? If they can measure Kansas, they can measure the curve, oh wait there isn't any to measure.

>>9745842
>Coriolis effect is due to the magnetic field
OK, now I know this is bait, you got a 7/10 for making me reply

>>9745837
>>9745872
>poor camera quality leads to bloom
>bloom makes brighter objects look bigger
>therefore the sun is closer during midday
ah yes, proof by using the world's shittiest instrumentation

>>9745872

Rather than repeating everything this guy says, I'll just post it instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIglW-hlVs

If you're right, then you're right regardless of whether or not you watch this series. Additionally, watching this will just present you with more "round-earth fallacies" to debunk and will consequently strengthen your argument.
Therefore it is in your best interest to watch these videos that cater to the round earth "conspiracy" and come back with plenty of debunks to prove me and everyone else who knows the Earth is a sphere wrong.

>>9745872
>>9745922

Here's an extra for good measure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xIt1N3CBXE


>>9745904
this

>>9745872
You never answered my question haha

>>9745900
Now I know you don't have an argument.

>>9745904
>M-muh bloom, m-muh glare
Weak.

>>9745922
I've watched these moronic videos before, don't hide behind them if you don't have an argument.

>>9744806
Okay, I see what you're saying, but couldn't alternate universes be a key to beating entropy?
The key word in the theorem is "closed system", if we can pull in matter or energy from outside our universe, we're good to go.
Maybe even as far as perpetual energy/motion?

>>9745968
Not An Argument

You can verify for yourself that bloom is a problem with a dimmable lightbulb and a cheap camera. Turn up the brightness and watch the bulb grow in size on your screen; turn down the brightness and see it shrink.

>>9746004
Don't you realise you're proving of bloom using a local light source is not evidence the sun is 93 million miles away? The flat model would expect bloom/glare as well, this does nothing for your model.

>>9746004
Don't you realise your proof of bloom using a local light source is not evidence the sun is 93 million miles away? The flat model would expect bloom/glare as well, this does nothing for your model.

>>9746010
oh, the fact that bloom is a problem isn't proof of the heliocentric model. it's just proof that your video >>9745837 isn't evidence in support of your claim.
bloom alone explains why the sun in that video appears to be larger during midday; the same video taken using higher quality equipment will show that the sun's apparent size doesn't change (except for some slight atmospheric lensing effects messing with its outline at the horizon).

>>9746032
Get my post number right brainlet this is also a mathematics board.

Don't you realise the sun could be getting smaller due to both bloom and it's actually getting smaller as it moves further away?

>the same video taken using higher quality equipment will show that the sun's apparent size doesn't change
Provide proof.

>>9744806
>vaccines are safe
Not always but they sure as hell don't cause autism. Although unsafe vaccines are rare for example the swine flu vaccine that did more harm than protection

>>9745380
is it the best /sci/ can do?

> didn't read lol
> didn't get lol
> didn't think lol

give me somebody worthy of an argument, please

>>9746047
>makes post
>deletes post
>makes another post saying the same thing
>cries about someone responding to the first (deleted) post
literal toddler

>Don't you realise the sun could be getting smaller due to both bloom and it's actually getting smaller as it moves further away?
yes, ooor it could just be bloom. the point is that the video can be described by bloom alone; nothing in there is incompatible with heliocentrism or specifically points to a flat earth.
if I showed you an Easter egg and claimed that it was proof of a chicken that lays painted eggs, the fact that it COULD have come from such a chicken isn't proof of the chicken; it could just have easily been a white egg painted by a human.

>Provide proof.
Watch this lovely time lapse view of a sunset taken with a high quality camera with appropriate exposure.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai8snipnyvE
Notice now the size of the sun doesn't change as it approaches the horizon?

>>9746098
>literal toddler
Cry more.

>yes, ooor it could just be bloom. the point is that the video can be described by bloom alone; nothing in there is incompatible with heliocentrism or specifically points to a flat earth.
You're 100% convinced the sunset was caused by the earth's rotation, correct?

>Notice now the size of the sun doesn't change as it approaches the horizon?
I notice the majority of the sunset is blocked by land and trees. Mine was taken from a plane. That's the best you've got?

>>9746132
>You're 100% convinced the sunset was caused by the earth's rotation, correct?
Based on the sum of the evidence we have, literally all of which points towards the heliocentric model.

>the majority of the sunset is blocked by land
niBBa what the fuck do you think a sunset is?
more to the point, you can see the shape and size of the sun's image until it descends below the horizon, even if there are some branches in the way, and its size doesn't change. how do you explain that? it's self-evident that the video quality is higher for this than for the one you posted...

>>9746159
>Based on the sum of the evidence we have, literally all of which points towards the heliocentric model.
I'm talking about that one specific video of the sunset from a plane, you believe the earth's rotation caused it?

>ou can see the shape and size of the sun's image until it descends below the horizon
No you can't, the horizon is blocked by high land and trees. Do the filming out in the ocean at least, otherwise you're tying to hide something in my opinion.

>>9746174
>I'm talking about that one specific video of the sunset from a plane, you believe the earth's rotation caused it?
The apparent sunset in that particular footage? Hard to tell. Because it's on a plane, it could conceivably have been caused by the plane outpacing the Earth's rotation. Also, it appears that the footage may have been mirrored (forward playthrough followed by a reverse playthrough or vice versa) so it's hard to say. Sunset in general, however, is caused by the Earth's rotation; this is unambiguously true.

>the horizon is blocked by high land
just making shit up, are we?

>Do the filming out in the ocean
oh, you want high-quality footage of sunrises or sunsets over the ocean? deng son, there's loads of that. stock footage sites have it in spades 'cause it's so aesthetic.
>https://www.videoblocks.com/video/mediterranean-sunset-timelapse-red-sun-go-down-in-water-sea-vacation-day-s4ac5lbxin4ithzj
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8
compare to a lower-quality video with lots of bloom, in which the sun appears to change size:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWZ23VZ3Wcg

>>9745437
Relativity still plays a considerable role in electromagnetism

>>9744806
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
&
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.

But if the first is true, then what about quantum entanglement, its the basis of faster then light communication. (Only on paper for know, but as far as i know its the basis of the quantum computers.)

>>9746234
>Because it's on a plane, it could conceivably have been caused by the plane outpacing the Earth's rotation.
The plane isn't flying in the right direction to be outpacing the rotation causing the sunset.

>just making shit up, are we?
Are you blind?

>>https://www.videoblocks.com/video/mediterranean-sunset-timelapse-red-sun-go-down-in-water-sea-vacation-day-s4ac5lbxin4ithzj
How do you think that's disappearing behind a curve? Notice how long the light remains despite the sun apparently disappearing behind a curve. That video was taken placed on the floor to decrease the horizon line distance. Trick of perspective.

The plane footage shows what's actually going on because you can see further through less dense atmosphere.

>>9745585
>No I am not, I didn't see the point in addressing it.
Because addressing the "incomplete" part means you notice that they still have a lot of room for improvement and that our understanding of matter is, well, incomplete. We don't know what links relativity to quantum mechanics, yet we know that they have proved extremely useful and yield appropriate experimental data. This means that they are incomplete until we have a complete quantum gravity theory at the very least.

>>9744806
>faster-than-light communication is impossible
Quantum entanglement

>>9746020
>Don't you realise your proof of bloom using a local light source is not evidence the sun is 93 million miles away?
You're right, however it can be used to prove that the Sun doesn't change size in the sky from sunrise to sunset, which is completely against the what a near Sun would be expected to do.

>>9746284
>The plane isn't flying in the right direction to be outpacing the rotation causing the sunset.
That can't be positively discerned from the footage; it's flying obliquely to the apparent direction of the sun's motion.

>Are you blind?
I'm not the one incapable of telling vegetation from solid land, or possibly of telling a mountain from the actual horizon itself.

>Notice how long the light remains despite the sun apparently disappearing behind a curve.
niBBa do you know what an atmosphere is?
>muh perspective
the sun is disappearing behind the ocean, which rules out any possibility of local highs making the horizon appear nearer than it is. and there's literally nothing in the video to suggest what the height of the camera is. what you are saying is gibberish.

this is what flatheads do when presented with evidence proving them wrong. they scream and cry and spew meaningless garbage to try and find some reason to ignore that evidence. this is because their ideology is one of self-delusion, which can only be held by people who are not only ignorant but do everything in their power to remain ignorant (since their model doesn't survive the even the most cursory comparison with the facts).

>>9746338
>it can be used to prove that the Sun doesn't change size in the sky
Prove? I'm afraid not. The movement and size of the sun can't be explained purely through "bloom", it ain't 93 million miles away it's obvious.

>I'm not the one incapable of telling vegetation from solid land, or possibly of telling a mountain from the actual horizon itself.
Get a clear, direct line of sight or it's worthless. Do it from a plane preferably, why are globalists so afraid of doing that?

>niBBa do you know what an atmosphere is?
Something that blocks the sun's light creating day and night.

>
the sun is disappearing behind the ocean, which rules out any possibility of local highs making the horizon appear nearer than it is. and there's literally nothing in the video to suggest what the height of the camera is. what you are saying is gibberish.
Don't you know the the horizon line will always be at eye level. If you lie down on the ground at the beach and look out into the ocean, the horizon line will be much closer to you than it would be for someone standing up. This horizon will obscure anything that goes beyond it, but nothing is disappearing behind a curve.

>>9746338
>it can be used to prove that the Sun doesn't change size in the sky
Prove? I'm afraid not. The movement and size of the sun can't be explained purely through "bloom", it ain't 93 million miles away it's obvious.
>>9746345
>That can't be positively discerned from the footage; it's flying obliquely to the apparent direction of the sun's motion.
I can't believe you think the earth is rotating in that video, causing the sunset.

>I'm not the one incapable of telling vegetation from solid land, or possibly of telling a mountain from the actual horizon itself.
Get a clear, direct line of sight or it's worthless. Do it from a plane preferably, why are globalists so afraid of doing that?

>niBBa do you know what an atmosphere is?
Something that blocks the sun's light creating day and night.

>the sun is disappearing behind the ocean, which rules out any possibility of local highs making the horizon appear nearer than it is. and there's literally nothing in the video to suggest what the height of the camera is. what you are saying is gibberish.
Don't you know the the horizon line will always be at eye level. If you lie down on the ground at the beach and look out into the ocean, the horizon line will be much closer to you than it would be for someone standing up. This horizon will obscure anything that goes beyond it, but nothing is disappearing behind a curve.

>>9746369
It’s impossible for day and night to be caused by anything but the earth rotating. If the sun itself were moving, it would change in angular diameter constantly throughout the day as it increases and decreases in its distance from the observer. There is no change in the sun’s angular diameter except for less than 1% that occurs over a YEAR due to earth’s distance from it changing slightly, so earth is not flat. Disproven. Stop.

>Something that blocks the sun's light creating day and night.

Use radio waves or infrared to see the sun when it’s illuminating other parts of earth. Oh, wait, you can’t, because earth isn’t flat. Disproven again.

>>9746369
>Prove? I'm afraid not. The movement and size of the sun can't be explained purely through "bloom", it ain't 93 million miles away it's obvious.
Sure it can, just remove the bloom with an appropriate filter.

>Don't you know the horizon line will always be at eye level?
It's not, though. It doesn't match observations with equipment. "It looks about eye level to me" is not an argument.

>>9746429
Didn’t you know? Our shitty eyeballs are the best scientific equipment available. If it “looks” like it is, it is.

>>9744806
>The Earth is round.
But thats wrng you fucking brainlet

>>9745459
>You start talking about vaccines
>Another anon talkes about potential issues
>But anon food is bad too
Great arguing there.
Do you agree that aluminum in vaccines could posses some danger, at all, independent of how bad food is for you?

>>9746482
Are you joking?

>>9746492
Are you retarded?
Earth is a bumpy spheroid. Only children and brainlets think that the simplistic explanation of "its round lol" is true. If you are trying to list facts then do it right, retard.

>>9746509
Being anal about semantics and specifics don’t make you smart, m8. The irregularity in Earth’s shape is very small.

>>9746515
>Being anal about semantics and specifics don’t make you smart, m8.
On the other hand being wrong when trying to list facts makes you dumb.
It's not something I would normally raise a fuse about, but if you are trying to make a statement about something here then I expect you to actually know more than a 5 year old.

>>9746509
>Are you retarded?
>asks the man who doesn't know what round means

>>9746527
Look up what Round means, then come back here.

>>9746526
The specifics simply aren’t that important. Do you call baseballs, basketballs, bowling balls, any kind of manmade ball an oblate spheroid or just round? They’re definitely more uneven than earth is. Why can’t you just accept that something “round” doesn’t have to be fucking perfectly round?

>>9746530
round
round/Submit
adjective
1.
shaped like or approximately like a circle or cylinder.
"she was seated at a small, round table"
synonyms: circular, ring-shaped, disk-shaped, hoop-shaped; More
2.
shaped like or approximately like a sphere.
"a round glass ball"

ap·prox·i·mate·ly
əˈpräksəmətlē/Submit
adverb
adverb: approximately
used to show that something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact; roughly.


You’re proving yourself wrong.

>>9746534
Are you dealing with the form baseballs, basketballs, bowlingballs or any kind of manmade ball as a scientific topic?

>>9746540
They are round. Irregularities don’t make things not round. Stop trying to look smart.

>>9746509
Approximately round.

Thing is though, that when we say "approximately round" as opposed to "approximately flat" or "approximately a torus" or "Approximately shaped like a Klein Bottle with my flat-earther uncle's face lovingly carved on the inside of it just to spite absolutely everyone" everyone drops the "approximately" because taking out information that you assume everyone knows when you construct a sentence is a basic communication skill.

>>9744814
You can’t have infinite genders if there are a finite number of people

>>9746621
There are only two genders. The idea that “gender” and “sex” are different is leftist fiction.

>>9746276
>>9746310
Quantum entanglement does not allow FTL communication. It is an enforced correlation which always holds when checked, but you need subliminal communication to check it. From either side it just looks random.

And before you mention quantum teleportation, that does use an entanglement channel to correlate two qubits over a large distance, but you need a classical channel (slower than light) to send two bits over to actually resolve and recover the data you wanted to send in the first place. Without this all you'll get is just random qubits.

>>9746663
Quantum mechanics is just a mind game people play to try to confuse the goyim.

>>9746663
I don’t see why you couldn’t just take a cipher with you to Alpha Centauri and then have FTL communication because you’ll know what you’re seeing means.

>>9746530
Imagine having a life so hollow, so empty, that you gain genuine satisfaction from pedantic nitpicking on the Internet.
Imagine then being WRONG about that nitpicking.
I sincerely believe you should end your life.

>>9746369
>it ain't 93 million miles away it's obvious.
Not An Argument
>I can't believe
well if YOU can't believe it, cased closed! surely nothing in the universe could defy your understanding!
>Get a clear, direct line of sight or it's worthless.
Why? Because (You) said so. What's with the constant goalpost-shifting? Every time someone posts the evidence you demand, you come up with some reason it doesn't count. (Also, the video you posted has a bunch of clouds in front of the sun. Hypocrisy much?)
>Something that blocks the sun's light creating day and night.
The atmosphere scatters light, redirecting it and creating a diffuse glow even when the source of the light isn't directly visible. Don't believe me? Go outside near a big city at night and see how the atmosphere scatters its lights. (Lest you think the light is from the sun or moon, notice that city sky-glow is MORE pronounced on cloudy nights.)
>Don't you know the the horizon line will always be at eye level.
Looking out the window of a skyscraper easily shows this to be false.

You'll notice I've given you some simple experiments you can do to verify my claims. Naturally, you'll refuse to even attempt them, because (as has been stated before) flatheads aren't interested in evidence, because it inevitably proves them wrong.

>>9746694
When you want to send a qubit, you need to collapse a superposition. This can give you several outcomes on both the sender and receiver end. Based on which way the collapse goes, you need to send a different bit of info that says how to recover the state you wanted to send. So basically, that "cipher" is only know once you start sending information.

There is no way to send information faster than light. Entanglement is a correlation which is only noticeable after subluminal comparison of that correlation. Without that comparison it just looks like any other quantum randomness.

Well first off OP, you're putting the burden of proof on us for things that are simply unknown. Why don't you go ahead and prove all your theories since you are the one bringing them up in the first place, instead of simply stating them as fact and challenging us to prove them wrong.

This is the same argument religious people use, well there is a God, prove to me there isn't, we can't prove it either way. And we can't prove what you're on about either way.

I agree with most of it. Not faster than the speed of light ? I think that's pessimistic. There are ways around/alternative outcomes for a lot of what you're stating.

Science is about being open-minded.

>>9745387
I actually prefer how he worded it, because people need to understand that incomplete is married with correct, and not contrary to correct. Most things we know are true AND incomplete.

>>9747380
>Why don't you go ahead and prove all your theories
*gesturing to literally ALL of science*

All of these things are extremely well established and have decades of the best experimental evidence backing them up. Proof has been established. Anyone who makes a new claim now has burden of proof on why their idea works better than those theories we know are correct.

> There are ways around/alternative outcomes for a lot of what you're stating.
I'm listening.

> Science is about being open-minded.
But not without being skeptical and empirical.

>>9747380
You do not personally have to test everything yourself to accept it as most probably true.
Forget everything in that post and think about everything else that you take for granted that you have not personally tested, and how much of that could kill you in testing it.

Vaccines could be harmful to neurological processes.

The Moon landings could've been faked.

Climate change could be the Earth doing it's thing naturally with little consequence of humans.

Einstein could've been wrong.

We could travel faster than light through wormholes / blackholes/ etc.

Even in your theories you state that they are incomplete.

Where did the first cell come from Darwin ?

Still no concrete answer to this.

The Big Bang Theory's math begins to fall apart the closer you get to the Bang itself. It stops making sense scientifically. It could be wrong.

It's plausible they are all wrong. Everything you said could be wrong.

I agree with you, on almost all your points.

But you can't just say oh well my theory is incomplete therefore if you find any flaws it's just cause it's incomplete and therefore it's still correct even though it's incorrect as well.

Everything I just said is correct and incomplete. Therefore if you disagree with anything I said then you just don't have the rest of it.

My point is that a Theory is just that. A Theory. By definition it IS NOT correct. It may seem it. It may seem mostly true. But that doesn't make it true. Anything is possible.

A wormhole could open up tomorrow and a universe with broken ass backwards ass physics could spill into ours and fuck everything.

Maybe God did create man separate from ape. We simply do not know. We currently have no way to prove it. It seems pretty obvious Darwin was right. However it remains a theory. Like many things you stated.

Therefore, it is not correct. It's just a guess man.

This is like 1st grade science.

Theory does not equal Fact.

>>9747418
You don't understand "correct and incomplete". Correct means all of these things give adequate descriptions of reality within their range of validity. Incomplete means their range of validity does not encompass everything. For some theories those borders are well known (Newtonian mechanics), for others we don't know how far they stretch.

Darwinian evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. Saying Darwinian evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain abiogenesis is besides the point.

And you have pointed out exactly the part where we know big bang cosmology is incomplete. That doesn't mean it's no longer correct.

Read the Asimov essay I linked in the first comment. It's very relevant.

>>9747418
Some of those things have been thoroughly tested and the likelihood of them being wrong is pretty close to zero.

Also, traveling through wormholes/blackholes is a way to avoid the faster than light requirement for travelling large distances in a reasonable amount of time. You don't actually travel faster than light, you travel slower than light across a shorter distance, literally a shortcut.
Einstein could've been wrong, be it is unlikely he was wrong about the things we have actually tested and use in our everyday lives, like GPS.
The Moon landings pretty much could not have been faked at the time they were done, so it's just as well we did them in the late 60s and early 70s.

>>9747428
>My point is that a Theory is just that. A Theory.
Are we talking about a Scientific Theory or a theory? Because they're very different beasts.

So if I kick my radio waves off through a wormhole that hits your ear in two seconds through a different wormhole, meanwhile the light emitted from my sun takes 8 billion light years to reach you wouldn't you say we are now communicating faster than the speed of light.

I can't argue against science I believe in any longer.

However the possibilities for everything you said to be false are real. You can't call something correct when we just don't know.

Theories have come and gone for many things, and i'm sure at the time people were certain they were correct. Don't be so certain is all i'm suggesting, if you are to be skeptical like a true scientist as you say, be also skeptical or the correctness of your beloved listed theories.

>>9747465
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

>>9747465
We are communicating faster than light could otherwise cross the distance minus the wormhole, but the radio waves are still only going at the speed of light.

>>9747428
>My point is that a Theory is just that. A Theory. By definition it IS NOT correct.
See:
>>9747415
If you don't even understand the concept of "scientific theory" you don't belong on this board.
If you have to resort to absolutes "nothing is ever 100% for sure", you've already failed to prove your point.
>>9747428
>A wormhole could open up tomorrow and a universe with broken ass backwards ass physics could spill into ours and fuck everything.
Sure, and maybe God will show up tomorrow and have ice cream for everybody.

Leave.
Please, just leave /sci/ and never come back.

>>9746621
So at max there would be like 8 billion genders?

>>9744806
"earth is round" is the three year old version of defining earths non standard ovaloid let more rocklike-ish shape, and im not even getting started on the obvious "remember copernicus? of course you don't" argument on the topic of black holes, quantum mechanics, electric universe theory, and all the other shit "scientists" "have proven"

mfw 99% of people unironically believe the lightspeed shit WITHOUT READING THE WHITE PAPER because "scientists did a test" with radio waves in space (I read it.)

>>9747479
you cannot prove that the universe wont open a wormhole tommorow to a space with different physics than our own. assumtions isn't science. and as i've already pointed out, nor is funding it until its true.

>>9747496
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Evidence or GTFO

>>9746621
>>9747490
What if a single person's gender shifted continuously along their lifespan, with an infinite number of instances along that line?

>>9747503
>wikipedia
armchair scientists pls
if you cant even make long waves with tesla coils dont respond to me, you'll hurt yourself.

The thing about Isaac Asimov is that he is a science fiction writer. So i don't really see his place in all of this. Just because the people in his story just so happened to be correct in their hypothesizing doesn't mean everyone who forms a theory based on a some facts is correct.

What about christopher columbus, when he landed in america. He formed a Theory. People brown, I sailed towards India. Ah Ha! i'm in india. You're all indians.

Our friend christopher pieced together some facts, and made a theory. He wasn't correct and incomplete. He was just plain fucking wrong. For reasons he couldn't understand. That doesn't mean his theory was incomplete. It was just wrong.

And your theories you claim to be correct can be wrong too.

>>9747496
Fact of the matter is that in comparison to most things we would call round, the Earth is exceedingly round.
Yes, by exact measurements, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, but round also doesn't mean "a perfect sphere".

It is not incorrect to say the Earth is round.

>>9747500
I am going to agree with you on that. We don't know EVERYTHING about our universe (and possible other universes) to say it is completely impossible.
However, from our current understanding of our universe, the physics we know the limits of from experimental testing, it is highly unlikely that such a wormhole would open from our universe. There is just no known mechanism that could be used within our known physics to cause it.
Outside our universe there could be different physics that could allow it. That's extremely hypothetical though, and impossible to test.
So, possible but I wouldn't hold my breath.

That's my whole point. Nothing is 100%. That's the whole point. It's not me failing at my point. That's the point. Thanks

>>9747428
>>9747509

Most likely bait, but I wouldn't be too surprised if there were people here who didn't know the difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis.

>>9747500
>you cannot prove that the universe wont open a wormhole tommorow
And you can't "prove" Captain Crunch "Oops, All Berries" isn't an Illuminati plot to indoctrinate children into worshiping Satan, but for all practical purposes, we're quite certain that isn't the case.

>>9747509
Isaac Asimov was also a professor of biochemistry.

>>9747521
He also wrote a fuckton of college textbooks in general, far more than his works of fiction.
I met him once, shook his hand even. Good times.

>>9746621
wrong do you NAZI even know of genederfluid?

>>9746882
>Not An Argument
It actually is. If you saw a ship out in the ocean and I told you it was 93 million miles away, would your common sense tell you I was lying or telling the truth? It's the same when someone says the sun is 93 million miles away, crazy how long this nonsense has gone unchallenged.

>well if YOU can't believe it, cased closed! surely nothing in the universe could defy your understanding!
If you think the sunset is caused by the earth's rotation then I hope the psychosis gets better.

>Why? Because (You) said so. What's with the constant goalpost-shifting? Every time someone posts the evidence you demand, you come up with some reason it doesn't count. (Also, the video you posted has a bunch of clouds in front of the sun. Hypocrisy much?)
We're trying to see the sun go behind the non-existent curve brainlet, not shitty footage with bullshit in the way as if it's hiding something.

>The atmosphere scatters light, redirecting it and creating a diffuse glow even when the source of the light isn't directly visible. Don't believe me? Go outside near a big city at night and see how the atmosphere scatters its lights. (Lest you think the light is from the sun or moon, notice that city sky-glow is MORE pronounced on cloudy nights.)
False comparison. The city is not moving away taking the light with it, unlike the sun.

>Looking out the window of a skyscraper easily shows this to be false.
You're not looking properly or haven't got a good view of the horizon. It works on a plane so of course it'll work on a skyscraper.

>>9746429
>Sure it can, just remove the bloom with an appropriate filter.
I challenge you to film the sunset from a high altitude plane with a solar filter, you will see the sun getting smaller.

>It's not, though. It doesn't match observations with equipment. "It looks about eye level to me" is not an argument.
Get out your basement and go to the beach. You see the sky and the water meet at the horizon line at your eye level. But the water isn't at your eye level and neither is the sky, that's perspective at work.

>>9746419
>It’s impossible for day and night to be caused by anything but the earth rotating. If the sun itself were moving, it would change in angular diameter constantly throughout the day
It does change brainlet, are you blind?

>Use radio waves or infrared to see the sun when it’s illuminating other parts of earth. Oh, wait, you can’t, because earth isn’t flat. Disproven again.
I have brainlet, the earth is flat.

>>9744806
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
ayo hol' up senpai

>>9747945
> I have brainlet, the earth is flat

Someone's encephalogram is flat

>>9744888
I mean, I don't know what the fuck "aether" is because I'm not hip to /sci/ memes, but I was going to ask how we know the unicorn is pink.

>>9747963
Says the brainlet that thinks the sun is 93 million miles away.

>>9747971
We don't, it was just a slip-up.

Aether is basically the old theory of what was in between the planets back before modern physics, which people approached quite reasonably as the "medium" that everything else was suspended in. Lasted into the 1900s when people tried measuring how fast the earth was going compared to the presumably stationary aether, and found that no matter how they did it, they couldn't find any hint of an aether anywhere

That, combined with vacuum experiments, pretty much buried aether theories everywhere except pseudoscience forums like /sci/

>>9747977
get the fuck out of /sci/, then kill yourself flattard

>>9748013
They couldn't detect the aether because the earth isn't spinning. However, Milner did prove the aether existed, he had the most accurate device but his work got ignored in favour of the relativity bullshit.

>>9748033
Get the fuck in /sci/, then alive yourself globetard.

>>9744806
>The Earth is round.
Wrong already lmao

>>9747927
>would your common sense tell you I was lying or telling the truth?
appeal to common sense is Not An Argument.
common sense says that solid rocks cannot flow. common sense says that switching confers no probabilistic advantage in the Monty Hall problem. common sense says that 0.999... is not equal to 1. common sense says that light travels instantaneously.
common sense is wrong literally constantly, and yet you put your faith in it still, because at least it's not actual evidence.

>We're trying to see the sun go behind the non-existent curve
and when it went behind the curve of the earth on land, you insisted that it was actually just going behind a mountain, against the evidence of your own eyes. and when it went behind the curve of the earth at sea, you claimed a bunch of evasive bullshit to dismiss what you'd just seen.
and again, the footage you yourself posted had clouds obscuring the sun. why does it count?

>The city is not moving away taking the light with it, unlike the sun.
why does this matter at all? skyglow shows that the atmosphere is CAPABLE of scattering light, explaining why there is light visible in the sky even after the sun has receded beyond the curve of the earth.

>You're not looking properly or haven't got a good view of the horizon. It works on a plane so of course it'll work on a skyscraper.
Too bad the evidence doesn't agree with you. Pic related; it's the observation deck on the Sears Tower in Chicago, showing the horizon distinctly below the vanishing point (eye level). The trouble with airplanes is that they don't have any good horizontal markers available, so determining where eye level is in relation to the horizon can be tricky. In a skyscraper, however, it works just fine.

>>9747505
You would still only have a finite, yet indeterminate amount of genders. That person will die.

>>9748049
Common sense tells us the sun isn't 93 million miles away. Webm related.

>nd when it went behind the curve of the earth on land, you insisted that it was actually just going behind a mountain
There's a damn tree in the way blocking the sun as it hits the horizon. Show the whole thing unobstructed pussy.

>the footage you yourself posted had clouds obscuring the sun. why does it count?
The sun had no trouble shining through the clouds when it was close, why would it have so much trouble shining through clouds if it was still the same distance away?

>why does this matter at all? skyglow shows that the atmosphere is CAPABLE of scattering light, explaining why there is light visible in the sky even after the sun has receded beyond the curve of the earth.
Yeah but watch how the light disappears when the sun has already disappeared, it doesn't disappear evently across the whole sky, it disappears in a narrow path that gets smaller and smaller, suggesting a local light source moving further away, taking the light with it.

>Too bad the evidence doesn't agree with you. Pic related; it's the observation deck on the Sears Tower in Chicago
So someone taking a picture with shaky hands proves the horizon doesn't rise to eye level? If the photographer held the camera straight and flat, the horizon will be at eye level.

>>9748049

>>9747944
>with a solar filter, you will see the sun getting smaller
plenty of footage like that, and the sun doesn't appear to shrink.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGvJqzUgWDI
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngSQngfOjmY
>inb4 muh vegutation
are you telling me that the sun shrinks as it approaches the horizon due to getting further away...unless there are some trees on the horizon, in which case it remains exactly the same apparent size all the way down? that's a neat trick for it to do; how's it know whether there's trees there?

>You see the sky and the water meet at the horizon line at your eye level.
wrong. the horizon line is slightly BELOW your eye level. it's just that at 6' above the water level (for those of us who aren't manlets) the difference is imperceptible. Go up fifteen hundred feet and that difference can be seen, however. >>9748049

>>9747945
>>9747977
>are you blind?
ah yes, back to the proof-by-shitty-instrumentation.
does it ever strike you as odd that the videos showing the sun appear to shrink dramatically are all poor-quality with loads of glare and bloom, while those with good image quality show the sun remaining the same size?

>I have brainlet, the earth is flat.
evidence or it didn't happen

reminder: you still have no comeback to this video, which I posted >>9746234
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8

>>9748065
>muh common sense
I've already demonstrated that common sense isn't reliable.
>Webm related.
ah, so when the sun sets below the horizon it's just a trick of perspective, but when (effectively) parallel beams of light appear to converge to a point, it's PROOF POSITIVE, huh?
wrong, retard. that's actually a trick of perspective. find the proper angle and it becomes abundantly clear that the rays are in fact parallel.
>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/02/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/#.Wv3DkYgvxhE

>why would it have so much trouble shining through clouds if it was still the same distance away?
because it's shining through MORE clouds. as the sun sets, its rays strike the earth at a more oblique angle, meaning that it passes through more of the atmosphere, meaning that it's absorbed more.

>how the light disappears when the sun has already disappeared, it doesn't disappear evently across the whole sky, it disappears in a narrow path that gets smaller and smaller, suggesting a local light source moving further away, taking the light with it.
wrong. refer back to
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8
and see how the pre-sunrise sky glow is distributed along the whole horizon on that side of the sky.

>If the photographer held the camera straight and flat, the horizon will be at eye level.
the photograph has no blur in it, contradicting your entirely unsupported claim of shaky hands.
and the angle of the camera has no bearing on where the horizon is in relation to the vanishing point. try it yourself! go down to the railroad tracks and take a bunch of photos looking off into the distance with the camera at different angles. you'll see that the camera angle has no effect; all that matters is that the guide lines used to establish the vanishing point are indeed horizontal.
you are literally making shit up now in a pathetic attempt to explain away your delusional model's utter failure to explain any of the evidence.

>>9748067
>oops, the horizon isn't where I want it to be!
>lemme just redraw the horizon up into the sky
>there, that's better. the evidence now matches my claims, so long as nobody actually looks at the picture!
laughable. I already knew that flatheads love to fabricate evidence, but this just takes the cake.

>>9744806

Earths is flat
my dubs confirm

>>9748074
>plenty of footage like that, and the sun doesn't appear to shrink.
Yet more pussy footage not showing the sunset with a direct line of sight. Solar filters add a layer of obscurity themselves, how can they be showing the "true" size of the sun when the sun isn't a solid object? It doesn't have a core, how much of the light a solar filter lets through is "real" sun, does it let any "fake" sun through too?

>wrong. the horizon line is slightly BELOW your eye level. it's just that at 6' above the water level (for those of us who aren't manlets) the difference is imperceptible. Go up fifteen hundred feet and that difference can be seen, however.
Wrong, the horizon always remains at eye level. If it didn't you would have to look down to see the horizon when looking out at the ocean, because the ocean is already lower than you because your eyes are higher than it, but the curve of the earth is sloping approximately 8 inches per mile, squared, so the horizon should be much lower than you, you should be looking down to see it, but you don't.

>does it ever strike you as odd that the videos showing the sun appear to shrink dramatically are all poor-quality with loads of glare and bloom, while those with good image quality show the sun remaining the same size?
It strikes me odd that every video using a solar filter is always extremely short, always obscured, and never a full sunset/sunrise. Do that and you'll have some credibility.

>evidence or it didn't happen
Newton wrote it, enough evidence for you?

>reminder: you still have no comeback to this video, which I posted
That video is evidence for the flat earth, it proves a local sun, pic related.

>>9748164
rolling again

>>9748166
>Yet more pussy footage not showing the sunset with a direct line of sight.
ah yes, the MUH VEGUTATION copout just like I predicted
If the sun's apparent setting is caused by it moving further away, it should shrink continuously as it descends in the sky. And yet it shows no sign of shrinking as it approaches the horizon in the footage I've posted. Are you or are you not claiming that the sun appears to remain the same size throughout its trajectory except at the last moment before it fully sets? (Note that a large part of the sun is still visible above the trees when part of the sun is already below the horizon; this would imply that the "bottom" of the sun is shrinking while the "top" remains the same size according to your model, which goes against all the laws of perspective.)
You are frantically attempting to handwave away the evidence you asked for, which is now proving you wrong.

>Wrong, the horizon always remains at eye level.
proven wrong >>9748049
>If it didn't you would have to look down to see the horizon when looking out at the ocean
you don't seem to understand what an imperceptible difference is.
>the curve of the earth is sloping approximately 8 inches per mile, squared, so the horizon should be much lower than you
You don't understand basic geometry.
The horizon is about 3 miles away on flat terrain (or water), for an observer 5-6 feet tall. 6 feet of arc at a distance of 3 miles is about 0.02 degrees. The width of your little finger, held at arm's length, is about 1 degree; one fiftieth of a degree would be about the width of two hairs held at arm's length against the sky. Can your eyes spot such a minuscule difference in angle arc? No, nobody's eyes can, you brainlet. Two hairs' width at arm's length is literally smaller than the apparent thickness of the horizon line.

>>9748117
>I've already demonstrated that common sense isn't reliable.
It's more reliable in this case rather than some nutty theoretical model. The behaviour of the sun does not match something that is 93 million miles away, you can believe it does, but I don't believe you're thinking for yourself, this is what you're forced to believe.

>>9748117
Interesting, so you have no problem with perspective altering the angles of sun rays, but it cannot alter sunset/sunrise? Can't have one without the other.

>because it's shining through MORE clouds. as the sun sets, its rays strike the earth at a more oblique angle, meaning that it passes through more of the atmosphere, meaning that it's absorbed more.
Or it's a local sun moving further away through more clouds/atmosphere? That makes more sense to me, Occam's razor.

>and see how the pre-sunrise sky glow is distributed along the whole horizon on that side of the sky.
It isn't. See >>9748166

>the photograph has no blur in it, contradicting your entirely unsupported claim of shaky hands.
It was a figure of speech, autist. All your "evidence" is extremely sloppy and fraught with errors. I'd expect much better from a 500 year old model.

>>9748166
>Do that and you'll have some credibility.
Here you go, faggot. Solar filter footage of the sun setting over the water, showing the sun go from completely visible to entirely beyond the curve of the earth.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-z7O7LddYs
As a bonus, the video is taken from a drone, ruling out your claim that it's a perspective trick caused by putting the camera on the ground. And even better, the drone is able to see the sun set TWICE simply by rising upwards (not forwards, UPWARDS) and seeing the sun's edge briefly peek up over the horizon again. This is entirely incompatible with your flat earth model.

>Newton wrote it, enough evidence for you?
You claimed >>9747945 to have seen the (allegedly too far to be seen with visible light) set sun using radio waves or infrared light. Now you're backpedaling to lying about what Newton wrote. (Remember, Newton understood that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, not a flat disc.)

>That video is evidence for the flat earth, it proves a local sun, pic related.
say it all you like, it doesn't make it true.
>not centered equally, forcing the horizon to obscure more
this is gibberish with absolutely no basis in fact.
>natural layer of distortion/obfuscation created by the water
making shit up again, are we? also, you said that views over bodies of water are PREFERABLE since there's no possibility of topographic highs or vegetation obscuring sunset.
>local light source
you're saying that the patch of sky right next to the sun (which is still visible above the horizon) is brighter than the patch of sky further away from the sun? no shit, sherlock; if the atmosphere doesn't have to scatter light as strongly for light to be transmitted to the viewer from a particular angle, the patch of sky at that angle will appear brighter. this is literally the same thing as the west side of the sky being brighter during sunset.

>>9748219
Answer the question please, does a solar filter show the "true" size of a sun that is made of helium and hydrogen? If not, my contention would be that a solar filter will force the sun to be much smaller than it is until the time the sun becomes smaller than that, which would be at the final stages of a sunset/sunrise, which these videos conveniently do not show.

>proven wrong
Nope.

>you don't seem to understand what an imperceptible difference is.

Either it's imperceptible but exists, or imperceptible and it doesn't exist, the one with least assumptions is the latter, so I'll pick that.

>The horizon is about 3 miles away on flat terrain (or water), for an observer 5-6 feet tall.
>Can your eyes spot such a minuscule difference in angle arc?

Isn't one your main arguments for curvature that you can see ships disappear over it? Are the ships getting lower than you?

>>9748221
>the earth is flat because common sense says so
>and common sense is reliable because it's right about the earth being flat
blimey, you sure fell back on circular argument fast.
>The behaviour of the sun does not match something that is 93 million miles away
and again, you're resorting to ipse dixit. you don't have any actual evidence; you're just THOROUGHLY CONVINCED that it just doesn't seem right, therefore it must be false (pic related). this kind of shit is why common sense gets people into trouble.

>perspective altering the angles of sun rays
you don't understand perspective if you think it "alters" the angles. it's not actual geometry; it's a trick of human perception.
>it cannot alter sunset/sunrise
your claim was that the sunset looked different because the camera was placed on the ground (though you had no evidence that the camera was actually on the ground, nor could you explain WHY this would make a difference). however, the same thing is seen when the sunset is filmed from cameras on tripods or on aircraft. see >>9748242

>That makes more sense to me, Occam's razor.
that's not what Occam's razor is, you brainlet. it's not about what "makes more sense to me", but rather what's the most parsimonious. this discussion basically boils down to the following:
>this evidence proves flat earth!
>>actually, that's also compatible with a round earth, and here's why
>well, it's compatible with both, so I'll just pick the one I like better. Occam's razor!

>pre-sunrise glow isn't distributed along the horizon!
>refers to picture that doesn't actually show pre-sunrise conditions
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>9748221
>muh figure of speech
that's a funny way of saying "I made a baseless accusation, and now that I've been proven wrong about it I'm being a huge whiny pissbaby about being called on it."
>All your "evidence" is extremely sloppy and fraught with errors.
Back to ipse dixit again!
You say the evidence is flawed, I ask you to explain yourself, you pick on some minor feature of the evidence and challenge me to provide evidence without that, I deliver the goods, and you immediately come up with another excuse for why you won't accept it, even to the point of outright lying about it >>9746284 >>9748065 >>9748067
And then when pressed, you just keep insisting that it's flawed even though you CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY. Proof by repetition doesn't work, faglord!

(pic related; it you)

>>9748254
>does a solar filter show the "true" size of a sun that is made of helium and hydrogen?
Um, yes? Depending on what filter you're using, it might not show the sun's outer atmosphere.

>my contention would be that a solar filter will force the sun to be much smaller than it is until the time the sun becomes smaller than that
Ah, so the filter MAGICALLY makes the sun appear smaller, but also stops it from appearing to shrink until it the exact moment it disappears from view. A few questions come to mind:
1. If solar filters make it impossible to see the steady shrinking effect you claim is present, why did you tell me to use a solar filter to see that shrinking effect >>9747945? Why recommend a tool for that observation if it makes that observation impossible?
2. If the sun really is slowly moving away over the entire course of sunset, why would the image of the sun seen THROUGH the solar filter not appear to shrink continually?
3. Given that part of the sun has vanished beyond the horizon while part of it is still visible above the trees, how do you explain the lack of apparent isometric shrinking? If the sun is shrinking, why is its shape changing? If the sun isn't shrinking, where is the part of it "below" the horizon going?
You're engaging in a practice known as special pleading.

>Nope.
Ipse dixit.

>Either it's imperceptible but exists, or imperceptible and it doesn't exist, the one with least assumptions is the latter, so I'll pick that.
Congratulations, you have disproven the existence of atoms.
Your whole argument boils down to "given several possiblities, the one that supports my opinions is objectively correct". Have you considered going into economics?
Additionally, by increasing the elevation, it is possible to make the distance between horizon and vanishing point perceptible >>9748049, proving its existence.

>Are the ships getting lower than you?
In rectangular coordinates yes, but not in spherical coordinates (i.e. elevation above sea level).

>Here you go, faggot. Solar filter footage of the sun setting over the water, showing the sun go from completely visible to entirely beyond the curve of the earth.
Don't you realise that the exact same thing would happen on a flat earth? The higher you go, the further you can see, as well as the atmosphere being less dense so the light can travel easier and further through it. You can see in the video how the sun moves away, it doesn't set in a consistent manner expected in the globe model, the top of it shows fully and gets smaller and smaller until it cannot be seen any more, proving it is not behind a curve.
>You claimed >>9747945 (You) to have seen the (allegedly too far to be seen with visible light) set sun using radio waves or infrared light. Now you're backpedaling to lying about what Newton wrote.
Autism confirmed, can't grasp subtle humor.

>(Remember, Newton understood that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, not a flat disc.)
Oh really? Thanks for reminding me.

>this is gibberish with absolutely no basis in fact.
You don't understand how perspective works. They teach this in toddler art school, it's very simple.

>making shit up again, are we? also, you said that views over bodies of water are PREFERABLE
Yes, they are preferable to the other shit that's been posted, but they are not perfect. If you deny that water doesn't have a distortion layer on its surface then you are beyond hope.

>you're saying that the patch of sky right next to the sun (which is still visible above the horizon) is brighter than the patch of sky further away from the sun? no shit, sherlock
Wait, you think one set of clouds are "right next" to the sun, and one patch that is "further away"? From a 93 million mile away sun? That kind of talk can only be applied to a local sun, what a terrible globalist you are.

>>9744806
>correct and incomplete
So which one is it?
It cant be both.

>>9744806
One more for you OP:
Biological race is not real.

>>9745771
>falling for such obvious bait

>>9748352
>You can see in the video how the sun moves away, it doesn't set in a consistent manner expected in the globe model, the top of it shows fully and gets smaller and smaller until it cannot be seen any more, proving it is not behind a curve.
>the top of it shows fully
If the top of it shows fully, WHERE is the bottom of it? Surely the "bottom" of the sun is not further away than the "top" of the sun. So tell me, where is the rest of the sun if not behind the earth?
Either part of the sun is behind something, or the sun is changing shape from a spheroid to an imperceptibly thin chord of a spheroid. You say the first isn't true, but you seem in denial about the second. Can you explain why the sun changes shape so dramatically, in a way that exactly parallels the appearance of it moving behind something else?

>i-i-it was just a joke bro!
is there anything more pathetic than someone who, when caught in a lie, claims he was just joking?

>They teach this in toddler art school, it's very simple.
then explain why having the sun off-center in the frame would cause the horizon to obscure more (of the sunset?)
should be easy, right?

>If you deny that water doesn't have a distortion layer on its surface then you are beyond hope.
okay, I give in, I won't deny it any more; I admit that water doesn't have a distortion layer on its surface.
real talk though, distortion caused by density differences at or just above the air-water interface is very small-scale, far smaller than the apparent width of the setting sun. it's literally weaker than heat shimmer on a road, and even that's not enough to obscure your view.

>patch of sky
>set of clouds
lrn2read moron
if your only argument is to lie about what I said, it shows how little you have.

>>9748282
>blimey, you sure fell back on circular argument fast.
Your logic is: "Science says the sun is 93 million miles away, so it's 93 million miles away". Talk about circular logic. You are simply taking people's word for it. Observation and common sense tells me the sun is not 93 million miles away.

>and again, you're resorting to ipse dixit. you don't have any actual evidence; you're just THOROUGHLY CONVINCED that it just doesn't seem right, therefore it must be false (pic related). this kind of shit is why common sense gets people into trouble.

>>9748221
Notice the hot spot on the clouds here, impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away. >>9748221

>you don't understand perspective if you think it "alters" the angles. it's not actual geometry; it's a trick of human perception.
Oh, so perspective alter's the sun's rays, but it doesn't alter sunrises/sunsets? How'd you come to that illogical conclusion?

>your claim was that the sunset looked different because the camera was placed on the ground
If the horizon line is not centered in the camera shot, then perspective is altered.

>well, it's compatible with both, so I'll just pick the one I like better. Occam's razor!
No, you pick the one with the most assumptions. Instead of physical, empirically measured scientific proof, you have to use theoretical models built out of the language of mathemagics. If you don't have this empirical proof, then the less assumptive conclusion is that it doesn't exist physically, not that it does.

>>9748383
>Science says the sun is 93 million miles away, so it's 93 million miles away
You don't know what circular logic is. (And by the way, we know the distance to the sun by observing the transits of inferior bodies between the Earth and the Sun and doing some pinpoint observations and simple calculations.)
>https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2012/articles/ttt_75.php

>Talk about circular logic.
2quoque4me

>You are simply taking people's word for it.
Ah yes, the inevitable nadir of flat-earth ideology. Pesky evidence proving your model wrong? Just throw away all the evidence! After all, if you didn't personally collect it using instruments you yourself designed and built, you're just TAKING PEOPLE'S WORD FOR IT.

>hot spot on the clouds
that's the reflection of the sun on the ocean, you dimwit. that is very obviously the reflection of the sun on the cloudless OCEAN (in fact, the Black Sea). If that's a hot spot, why haven't any ships reported highly localized patches of scorching heat?
did your parents have any children that lived?

>perspective alter's the sun's rays
perspective doesn't actually alter anything; it just tricks our brains, and boy is your brain apparently easy to trick.
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you any more simply.

>If the horizon line is not centered in the camera shot, then perspective is altered.
this is SO not how perspective works (the direction of the camera does not change how parallel lines appear to vanish) but it's already been established that you don't understand perspective at all and just treat it as a magic wand used to explain away the inconsistencies in the images you post.

>you pick the one with the most assumptions
I pick the one with the most evidence.
>you have to use theoretical models built out of the language of mathemagics
high school dropout confirmed lmao.
baby, who hurt you? did the mean teacher make you do stuff with numbers?

>>9748330
>Um, yes? Depending on what filter you're using, it might not show the sun's outer atmosphere.
Where's you proof please? How does a solar filter "know" what is fake sun and what is real sun?

>1. If solar filters make it impossible to see the steady shrinking effect you claim is present, why did you tell me to use a solar filter to see that shrinking effect >>9747945 (You)? Why recommend a tool for that observation if it makes that observation impossible?
>2. If the sun really is slowly moving away over the entire course of sunset, why would the image of the sun seen THROUGH the solar filter not appear to shrink continually?
Because you need to do it from a plane, where you can see the sunset for much longer, with much less distortion. A solar filter can make a bigger sun smaller, but not a smaller sun bigger.
>3. Given that part of the sun has vanished beyond the horizon while part of it is still visible above the trees, how do you explain the lack of apparent isometric shrinking? If the sun is shrinking, why is its shape changing? If the sun isn't shrinking, where is the part of it "below" the horizon going?
>You're engaging in a practice known as special pleading.

Imagine it like this. You have a piece of A4 paper, and you poke a very small hole in the centre of it using a needle (or your dick). If you put up that paper at the sun, how much of the sun would be coming through the hole? Not very much at all, and the size of the hole of light won't get smaller even if the sun moves back and forth because it always has enough light to fill the whole, unless you're able to watch a sunset from a vantage point that shows it for much longer.

>Congratulations, you have disproven the existence of atoms.
Well yes, they're bullshit as well.

>given several possiblities, the one that supports my opinions is objectively correct
Your argument is that given the only possibility that science provides me with (globe earth), then it must be a globe. That's dogmatic.

>>9748437
>How does a solar filter "know" what is fake sun and what is real sun?
it doesn't, you brainlet. most solar filters just drastically dim incoming light, allowing only a small fraction of the light to pass through. this means that only the brightest objects will be visible through the filter. some filters allow the sun's dimmer corona to be seen, while others are dark enough to blot it out along with the rest of the sky.

>1
no answer given
>A solar filter can make a bigger sun smaller
wrong. solar filters allow the whole disc of the sun (not counting the corona, usually) to be seen. the entire surface of the sun has essentially the same brightness.

>2
but there's nothing around the sun blocking its edge. what is the "paper" in the real-world system? the same stuff is between the sun and the viewer at its edge as at its center. by the paper metaphor, you'd only see the center of the sun's disc until it's already shrunk down, and yet it's possible to see the edge of the sun through a solar filter, as proven by the appearance of solar prominences
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GFOSmb37Kg
your metaphor is entirely unrepresentative of the actual system, in your model or in mine. the special pleading continues.

>3
no answer given

congratulations. I had three questions, and you gave a total of one bullshit answer to one of them. this shouldn't be difficult, but you seem completely lost.

>atoms are bullshit
Brownian motion proves you wrong.
also, the ability of mass spectrometers to identify the makeup of substances, the ability of atomic force microscopes to image individual atoms, and the ability of yours truly to make mustard gas.
turns out if someone's a delusional brainlet, he'll believe just any old conspiracy theory, apparently.

>given the only possibility that science provides me with (globe earth), then it must be a globe. That's dogmatic.
>waaah, they're telling me I should believe the only model with evidence to support it!
cry a little harder.

>>9748437
>Where's you proof please? How does a solar filter "know" what is fake sun and what is real sun?
Are you completely retarded?
A solar rated filter just reduces the amount of light entering the lens, just like an ND filter.
The Sun is extremely bright and a camera cannot adjust for it on its own which is why you use a solar rated filter when taking photos of the Sun to reduce the light to a level the camera can control.

>Because you need to do it from a plane
No, you can do it anywhere. Sunset is not the only time there should be change in the size of the Sun in the flat model. It should be biggest at noon and change across sunrise to noon to sunset. Hourly photos across the day would be sufficient to prove one way or another.
Also, the Moon should do the same thing and is easier to photograph.

>Imagine it like this. You have a piece of A4 paper, and you poke a very small hole in the centre of it using a needle
That's actually a reasonable way of observing the Sun. Ever heard of a pinhole camera?

>>9748381
>If the top of it shows fully, WHERE is the bottom of it? Surely the "bottom" of the sun is not further away than the "top" of the sun. So tell me, where is the rest of the sun if not behind the earth?
Same as what's happening to the ship in gif related.

>is there anything more pathetic than someone who, when caught in a lie, claims he was just joking?
Your autism is showing because you took it as a serious statement in the first place.

>then explain why having the sun off-center in the frame would cause the horizon to obscure more (of the sunset?)
should be easy, right?
Perspective depends on the angle with which the observer is looking from.

>real talk though, distortion caused by density differences at or just above the air-water interface is very small-scale, far smaller than the apparent width of the setting sun. it's literally weaker than heat shimmer on a road, and even that's not enough to obscure your view.
GIF related disproves this.

>>9748731
>look at my selective gif that totally proves you wrong
>sunsets only happen over water
>>far smaller than the apparent width of the setting sun
>gif is highly zoomed on a boat on the horizon
>implying the sun wouldn't be filling almost if not the entire frame at this point

>>9748731
>you can't see the "bottom" 90% of the sun because of a mirage
if it's just a mirage, why is there no flickering? mirages universally shift and wobble due to the way air mixes, as seen in the footage of the boat. and yet there is NO such flickering in the footage I've posted; the sun simply disappears behind the earth, with gradually less and less of it visible. additionally, in the footage with tree branches in front of the sun, there's no distortion of the branches; they show up normally.
say, whatever happened to your blustering about parsimony? there could be proper conditions for an extremely stable mirage every single sunrise and sunset, making it look like the sun is going behind the earth...OR it could just be that the sun actually is going behind the earth. Occam's Razor says it's the second!

>i-i-it was just a joke, honest! why can't you just leave me alone?
pathetic

>Perspective depends on the angle with which the observer is looking from.
aaand why does that mean that the horizon would obscure more of the sunset if it's not centered in the frame?
regardless of which way the camera is facing, the angles between the camera, the sunset, and the apparent horizon remain the same. this is very simple geometry, and you can easily verify it yourself.

>you said that density lensing is too small-scale to obscure the sun, but here's a gif of it distorting the image of a boat. if it's big enough to distort a boat, it's big enough to distort the sun!
um, do you flatheads actually believe that the sun is smaller than a boat?


there you have it. the sun isn't actually going behind the earth; there's just a perfect mirage every morning & night that makes it look like it is. and what's really happening at sunset is that the sun's receding off into the distance, only we need to use a solar filter to see it properly but we can't see it through a solar filter. oh, and if there's ever any evidence that this isn't the case, it's just a trick of Perspective(tm)

>>9746621
let number of genders someone can have be equal to "g".

humans invented the concept of gender and sex being non-interdependant.

gender, not being tied to sex allows it to assume any level of bullshittery.

[math]g \geq 0[/math]

therefore a single human can have any number of genders, including non-negative rational and imaginary numbers, although one could argue that any value of [math]g > 1[/math] will be imaginary.

>>9744806
>>Faster-than-light communication is impossible
Relativity does not exclude this, but it is highly improbable from what we know. I would say that faster than light travel or communication cannot be wholly ruled out, but it requires exotic matter or new physics that conflict with more or less everything we know.

>>9747945
>It does change brainlet, are you blind?

Using your eyeballs instead of a solar filter and scientific instruments. Cute.

>I have brainlet, the earth is flat.

Really? Prove it and have other people confirm this observation.

>>9744806
>big bang cosmology is correct

lol, not only are you better off with more traditional forms of religion, they'll make you a better person too. stop believing such bullshit

>>9749208
>I can’t refute Big Bang cosmology so I’ll just insult you instead

>>9749213
>all the energy in the universe has always existed forever

or

>the universe somehow created energy at one time but no longer does

again, better off with religion

>>9749121
Gender is given by a two-dimensional vector space freely generated by male and female.

>>9749131
The speed of light is the speed of causality.
Slowing light would also slow causality, increasing the speed of causality would also increase the speed of light.
You cannot break the speed of light.

>>9744806
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Quantum Mechanics is just a description of a subject. It has many different models used to describe various phenomenon. Whether or not it is correct is up to interpretation. Many models are wrong which provide many useful approximations and predictions. Models after all are just idealizations which people use to try to make their life easier and hopefully do something beneficial to themselves.
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
>Big Bang cosmology is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Since the word incomplete keeps coming up, I have to point out that it's nothing but a tautology. A theory intended to describe only a specific set of phenomenon is incomplete by construction. You assert nothing worth considering by saying a theory is incomplete. You might as well say our description of reality is incomplete even though this really doesn't do anything for anyone or provide anything of value.
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
This one is somewhat controversial. Though the classical relativity perspective requires this and it seems to be the case for many things, the results of EPR paradox provide a situation where "Galilean relativity" is in fact the case and this was theoretically and experimentally proved.
>Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, free energy generators and the like can not and will never work.
Stars are practically free energy generators. They do exist and relative to our lifespans, they are free energy generators and perpetuum mobiles all in one.

>>9749216
Those options bother you why? That’s just a false dichotomy anyway. You didn’t refute fucking anything lmao.

>>9749286
Entangled pair tests will be proven flawed in time. There'w no communication between them, they're just opposites.

>>9749272
prove it. We still cannot conclusively exclude the possibility of time travel. There is also the possibility of faster than light travel being unidirectional, you can go to Alpha Centauri A in less than 4.2 years, but if you want to go back it takes more than 4.2 years. This eliminates the possibility of causality violations

>>9744806
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers anyway *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment where it should outperform current scientific theory.
Define what you mean by outperform. There are many situations where theory A provides more useful predictions that theory B while theory B provides more useful predictions that theory A in other situtations. Theory A can give you numbers which you can measure in a laboratory, but theory B is more useful to get some level of understanding of the phenomenon which one may work from. The Maxwell equations are very useful for dealing with everyday electro-magnetic waves and light, but only provide the expectation values for a photon. Yet they are extremely useful for everyday use. Meanwhile, the quantum Fock space model of photons provide much more understanding as to the behavior of photons as quantum particles. Qualitatively, a fluid is trillions of molecules, while we use continuum mechanics to study fluids. This notion you wrote down is incredibly naive. People have built bridges and buildings for thousands of years without having math sophisticated enough to do anything but count and make simple measurements. Stop posting this copypasta.

>>9749300
>This eliminates the possibility of causality violations
No, it does not. Causality is not bi-directional by requirement. If it was then light would violate it just fine.

>>9749294
It's been almost 50 years since those experiments first took place yielding such a controversial result. It seems that they probably won't be proven flawed. Communication is just a word that's loosely used that implies various things. The interaction between the particles as it seems from the experiments and the model implies the possibility of an instantaneous interaction. Spin is just a number used to describe a quantum particle. "Opposite" is just a mathematical artifact.

>>9749304
There's a difference between theories that are separate from each other and theories that encompass a previous theory. Like quantum theory and relativity work in different regions but largely deal with the same things, we are still looking for the theory that encompasses both.
However Newton's gravitational theory was superceeded by relativity, it better explains everything Newton did.

>>9749311
And you miss the point. What one chooses to be the correct theory depends on how useful the theory is for the particle situation. The pragmatists are the correct ones in this case. For someone who's doing something like trying to launch a rocket or measure the weight of a nearby celestial object, a theory like Newton's theory of gravity is preferred. If you want to do astrophysics for things like black holes, Einstein's theory is preferred. Both are correct and both are wrong. The only thing there is to judge is how useful the theories are and for what they are useful for. Theories do not really supercede each-other in reality. There are no universal methods, only the ones that have worked before in the situation you're dealing with.

>flathead abandons thread
>immediately replaced by a big bang contrarian
never change, /sci/

>>9749329
Could be the same troll desu.

>>9746651
/thread

>>9744806
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
What about entangled particles reacting to each other's changes instantly, i.e. spooky action at a distance?

>Perpetuum mobiles, over-unity devices, free energy generators and the like can not and will never work.
Nuclear power plants are for all intents and purposes free energy generators.

>>9749886
> What about entangled particles reacting to each other's changes instantly, i.e. spooky action at a distance?
You cannot use those to send a message.

> Nuclear power plants are for all intents and purposes free energy generators.
That's not what that means. They require fuel.

>>9749886
>What about entangled particles reacting to each other's changes instantly, i.e. spooky action at a distance?
Yeah, no.
All we know is that no matter in what way we choose to measure the first particle, the second is always opposite. We can't actually assign some value to one particle before measuring it and thus be able to deduce that value from the other.

>>9748429
>You don't know what circular logic is. (And by the way, we know the distance to the sun by observing the transits of inferior bodies between the Earth and the Sun and doing some pinpoint observations and simple calculations.)
You've just committed circular logic again. If you're going to base the distance of the sun via the transit of Venus, then you need to know how far Venus is as well, which runs into the same issue again.

>Ah yes, the inevitable nadir of flat-earth ideology. Pesky evidence proving your model wrong? Just throw away all the evidence! After all, if you didn't personally collect it using instruments you yourself designed and built, you're just TAKING PEOPLE'S WORD FOR IT.
I reject the "evidence" because it's assumptive bullshit, it's not concrete scientific evidence.

>>9748429
>that's the reflection of the sun on the ocean, you dimwit. that is very obviously the reflection of the sun on the cloudless OCEAN (in fact, the Black Sea). If that's a hot spot, why haven't any ships reported highly localized patches of scorching heat?
>did your parents have any children that lived?
Kek, if that's the reflection of the sun then the sun must be directly over that point of "water" (looks like clouds to me). Does pic related add up to you?

>this is SO not how perspective works (the direction of the camera does not change how parallel lines appear to vanish) but it's already been established that you don't understand perspective at all and just treat it as a magic wand used to explain away the inconsistencies in the images you post.
Please, enlighten me as to how perspective works.

>baby, who hurt you? did the mean teacher make you do stuff with numbers?
Projection, and not an argument.

>>9748493
>it doesn't, you brainlet. most solar filters just drastically dim incoming light, allowing only a small fraction of the light to pass through. this means that only the brightest objects will be visible through the filter. some filters allow the sun's dimmer corona to be seen, while others are dark enough to blot it out along with the rest of the sky.
That's my point brainlet, a solar filter already distorts the size of the sun, so it can not be used as evidence for its size as it moves over the stationary, flat plane.

>wrong. solar filters allow the whole disc of the sun (not counting the corona, usually) to be seen. the entire surface of the sun has essentially the same brightness.
Are you claiming that the surface of the sun is solid? Surely the light within the sun is brighter than the "surface", remember your bullshit sun is made of gases, so it doesn't have a surface in the sense you're making out.

>but there's nothing around the sun blocking its edge. what is the "paper" in the real-world system? the same stuff is between the sun and the viewer at its edge as at its center. by the paper metaphor, you'd only see the center of the sun's disc until it's already shrunk down, and yet it's possible to see the edge of the sun through a solar filter, as proven by the appearance of solar prominences
The paper in my example is the solar filter which shrinks the sun to the same size no matter its distance, however once the sun gets smaller than what it's shrunk to by the solar filter, it will then get smaller.

>also, the ability of mass spectrometers to identify the makeup of substances, the ability of atomic force microscopes to image individual atoms, and the ability of yours truly to make mustard gas.
>turns out if someone's a delusional brainlet, he'll believe just any old conspiracy theory, apparently.
Spectometers are electromagnetic in nature, all they detect is electromagnetic frequency, which is the true nature of reality, not atom bullshit

>>9748512
>Are you completely retarded?
>A solar rated filter just reduces the amount of light entering the lens, just like an ND filter.
>The Sun is extremely bright and a camera cannot adjust for it on its own which is why you use a solar rated filter when taking photos of the Sun to reduce the light to a level the camera can control.
Which means it's not proof of the true size of the sun brainlet, why is this so difficult to understand?

>No, you can do it anywhere. Sunset is not the only time there should be change in the size of the Sun in the flat model. It should be biggest at noon and change across sunrise to noon to sunset. Hourly photos across the day would be sufficient to prove one way or another.
Show me a sunset using a solar filter from a plane, and I will believe you. Pity no globalist has done this because it will prove them completely wrong.

>>9744806
>correct and incomplete
science isn't a puzzle board. Just because the pieces you have work with our current understanding of the world does not mean those pieces are correct.

Brainlets think the sun is setting behind a curve. Webm shows it gets smaller and further away.

>inb4 muh solar filter
Why doesn't the sun go down behind the horizon like the globe model predicts? You don't need a solar filter for that.

>correct and incomplete
>pick one
Besides theories are approximations to reality. Science =/= reality.
It seems that you have never entered a laboratory retard.
1/10 bait made me answer.

>>9745344
Although royalty do have the divine right to rule even in the 21st century.

>>9745358
>Disproven by chopping the heads of entire royal families and not immediately being struck by lightning from an angry deity
Implying that the killers of Louis XVI aren't in hell right now because they killed an innocent man.
>hurr if God doesn't strike you with magic lighting he doesn't exist
But I believe in god
>hurr beliving in magic skydaddy

>>9745372
>implying any theory we have no matter how good it is isn't just an excellent approximation to really.
Exemple: quantum physics works great at microscopic scale but even at that scale is an approximation of reality.

>>9745558
In about 200 years another experiment by other random dude will prove another theory we have completely wrong.
Its always the same shit. You can't get to the absolute truth.

>>9745732
>Bible
>anything to do with that
It seems to me that you should read it instead of taking the bait of burger protestants.
Pro tip: that bible even says the earth is round.

Globalists can't explain this.

So like, if infinite energy isn't possible then what about enough energy for it not to matter?

Like, is not having infinite energy as such a big deal as like, not being able to move faster then light? That seems limiting for a civilization, while a lack of infinite energy just seems like we just need to build better engines or something.

>>9750467
Stop trolling, please.

>>9750529
Not an argument. How about explaining it?

>>9750533
Stop trolling, please. I strongly doubt you’re serious but you should ask yourself why these distortions occur only at sunset if you actually believe this trash. Measure a difference in the angular diameter of Sol between 12 PM and 5 PM and get back to me.

>>9750533
>>Every university and college around the world teaches the world is round.
>>We have satellites and mathematical equations that prove this beyond any doubt.

Simple fact is the earth can only be flat if you're some tin-foil hatter. You gotta take huge swaths of data and just dismiss them as "conspiracy" because they don't mesh with some world view that makes you feel like someone special.

It's honestly kind of pathetic that conspiracy theorists are so blinded by wanting to know some "magic truth" that somehow makes them more "enlightened" then the rest of us. Pure unadulterated ego.

Seriously, look at this dumb ass posting videos from a plane that he doesn't even understand while spouting "I HAVE SEEN THE TRUTH EVEN THO 'THE MAN' DOESN'T WANT ME TO. I AM BETTER THEN YOOOOU."

It's just kinda cute. Time for me to watch accurate models of the universe on youtube and to wander the world with google maps.

>>9750544
It's called perspective. See pic related for example. How can you see the writing on the hurdles that are behind the front hurdle, when they are the exact same height as the hurdle in front and on a flat surface?

Now imagine there was water under the hurdles, the hurdles at the back would be distorted the most by the water because perspective forces them to be closer to the water, yet they are the exact same height. This proves that light is subjective to the perspective of the observer, so something far away like that sun that moves further away will eventually get distorted by the ocean it is moving over. No rotation of the earth required.

>>9750550
>Every university and college around the world teaches the world is round.
Every university and college around the world taught that Pluto was a planet. Appeal to majority fallacy.
>We have satellites and mathematical equations that prove this beyond any doubt.
Bouncing radio waves off the ionosflat is proof of satellites? That's cute.
>mathematical equations
Mathematical equations != scientific proof. Sorry, if mathematical equations were ultimate proof then Newton would still be right.

The rest of your babble is just fuelled by insecurity and ad hominem. Do better please.

>>9750579
Wrong again. You’re either insane or a troll. You completely ignored the fact that there’s zero difference in the sun’s angular diameter between 12 PM and 5 PM and neglect to mention the sun disappears from the bottom up, which proves you wrong.

>>9750593
>You completely ignored the fact that there’s zero difference in the sun’s angular diameter between 12 PM and 5 PM
Proof please, preferably from a plane that has a clearer view.

>the sun disappears from the bottom up
Look at those hurdles and imagine there was a million of them instead, each one getting lower than the one before it, which part of the hurdle would hit the horizon first?

>>9750280
>you need to know how far Venus is as well, which runs into the same issue again
answer is as simple as pic related. are you really going to deny basic geometry in your zeal to throw out the evidence proving you wrong?

>I reject the "evidence" because it's assumptive bullshit, it's not concrete scientific evidence.
you're literally throwing away concrete scientific evidence because someone other than you collected it. but for some reason, you're willing to accept """"evidence"""" collected by other flatheads; apparently, the ideology of the person making the claims tells you whether the evidence is trustworthy or not. you're literally letting your predetermined conclusions determine what evidence does or doesn't count, which is explicitly anti-scientific.
so, translation:
>I reject the evidence because I don't understand it, and therefore fear it.

>if that's the reflection of the sun then the sun must be directly over that point of "water"
what you just said goes against the most basic laws of optics
switch on a lamp. put a glossy magazine on the floor between you and the lamp. move your head up or down until you see the light from the lamp reflecting off the magazine, even though the lamp is not directly above it.
>looks like clouds to me
that's because you're a retard

>pic related
the sun is relatively low in the sky. its light is being reflected/scattered off the tops of clouds. where the angle between the clouds and the camera is about right, that reflected light reaches the camera, producing the glowy effect seen.
doesn't it strike you as odd that the "hot spots" you allege are never observable from the ground, or from within their location? they actually appear in different spots to viewers in different locations, because they are just reflections.

>>9750587
You’re fucking retarded.

First of all, while it may be an appeal to majority fallacy, you also cannot dismiss anything that is accepted by the majority as false simply because it is part of the majority.
Your example of Pluto is just plain wrong. Pluto has not changed physically in any way, shape or form, we just changed our definition of a planet. Pluto WAS a planet before then definition was changed, now it is not because the definition excluded it. So universities were always teaching the correct thing.

>mathematical equations are not scientific proof
You’re correct but your reason for applying it to this situation is misguided. The reason why experimentalists exist is because, as you pointed out, having mathematical models to back up your idea is not a sufficient condition for being scientifically true.
HOWEVER, having mathematical models to back up your theory is a NECESSARY condition for having a valid theory. And flat earth “theories” are completely fucking devoid of mathematical reasoning.
Additionally, you have to realize that how experimentalists determine which theories are correct are by using the mathematical frameworks to make quantitative predictions that can be falsified.
So, while equations are not scientific fact, equations can make predictions about the world that can be tested. And the equations to which the poster your are replying to is referring predicts numbers that match EXACTLY (to within experimental error, which is MUCH smaller than anything that would be introduced by significantly modifying the shape of the Earth).

>>9750606
You can fucking measure it yourself retard. The burden of proof is on your side of the table for coming up with such an implausible theory that contradicts the current structure.

>>9750280
>enlighten me as to how perspective works
perspective effects (apparent convergence, foreshortening, etc.) depend entirely on the relative position in space of the objects observed: that is, the distances and angles between them. rotating the camera doesn't change any of these so long as the camera remains in the same place.
toddlers can understand this.

>Projection
fool, I work with complicated mathematical models (just did a project involving CO2 sequestration) and spatial statistical methods (my masters work was on morphometric ontogeny). my bread and butter involves the kind of math that apparently terrifies you because, again, it's too complex for your tiny brain to make sense of.
>not an argument
my argument is that you believe math is inherently untrustworthy to the point of outright DISMISSING anything that involves math. maybe this explains why you don't understand basic geometry.

>>9744806

> Vaccines are save and effective.

Most Vaccines contain either aluminum or mercury. The purpose of these metals is simple, to agitate the immune system so the it builds a resistance to said virus.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html

Search for links (use duckduckgo, google is shit) between these adjuvants and autism or dementia.

Also, why do those for vaccines commonly use the argument, "If your child is not vaccinated, mine will get sick".

Go stick your dick in a garbage disposal, including the balls preferably. It'll create less stupid.

>>9750307
>a solar filter already distorts the size of the sun
wrong-o. the only part of the sun it actually blocks out is the corona, which isn't normally visible to the naked eye (or cameras) anyway.
a solar filter does not block out most of the sun like you apparently think it does. it simply dims everything by the same amount, so that only the brightest things (like the sun) can be seen. think of it as a really strong pair of sunglasses.
>so it can not be used as evidence for its size
that's funny, because in >>9747944 you literally said a solar filter could be used as evidence for the sun's size.
which requires fewer assumptions? solar filters simultaneously can and cannot be evidence for the apparent size of the sun...or you made a stupid claim, got BTFO, and are now desperately trying to backpedal? Occam's Razor says it's the second!

>Are you claiming that the surface of the sun is solid
no, it is plasma.
>Surely the light within the sun is brighter than the "surface"
yes, but it is absorbed by the cooler outer layers and re-emitted. your inability to understand the sun doesn't mean its actual structure is impossible.

>the solar filter which shrinks the sun to the same size no matter its distance
except there is literally zero evidence to say that this is how solar filters work.
in fact, pic related conclusively proves you wrong. that's footage of the annular eclipse of 2012, captured through a solar filter. if the outer edge of the sun were blotted out by the filter, the annulus wouldn't be visible. this proves that the entire disc of the sun at its actual apparent size is viewable through a solar filter.

>Spectometers are electromagnetic in nature, all they detect is electromagnetic frequency, which is the true nature of reality, not atom bullshit
pseudoscientific technobabble.
please explain, how does a mass spectrometer work? how can it tell me the elemental makeup of a substance?

>>9750622
>answer is as simple as pic related. are you really going to deny basic geometry in your zeal to throw out the evidence proving you wrong?
How does parallax alone prove distance and size? Surely these things are required beforehand in order for parallax to be accurate.

>you're literally throwing away concrete scientific evidence because someone other than you collected it. but for some reason, you're willing to accept """"evidence"""" collected by other flatheads; apparently, the ideology of the person making the claims tells you whether the evidence is trustworthy or not....
This would be true if I blindly accepted every flat earth theory/model, which I do not. What I do know is that the earth is flat, so any evidence that supposedly supports a globe either works on a flat earth or is bullshit. The beauty of fundamental (and true) axioms means you can reject "evidence" that goes against this fundamental axiom.

>switch on a lamp. put a glossy magazine on the floor between you and the lamp. move your head up or down until you see the light from the lamp reflecting off the magazine, even though the lamp is not directly above it.

Are you using an example of a local light source? That's not evidence for the globe model. Also, why doesn't the "reflection" of the sun in the video not move as the camera moves around, which would be consistent with your example.

>looks like clouds to me
>that's because you're a retard

Then goes on to say
> its light is being reflected/scattered off the tops of clouds
You believe the clouds are reflecting a 93 million miles away sun. What is it about those clouds that makes them reflect the sun like that? Surely, when the sunlight hits the earth, the rays are parallel and cover the entire earth equally, just not those clouds?

>the sun is relatively low in the sky
The position of the sun makes no sense from a globe perspective. Look at the video and imagine it's a globe, you'll see it's not right at all.

>>9744806

Actually Earth isn't round, it's flattened at the poles.

>>9750314
>it's not proof of the true size of the sun brainlet, why is this so difficult to understand?
because it's a 100% false claim. again, think of a solar filter as a really strong pair of sunglasses. do sunglasses change the size of the sun viewed through them?
...you don't actually think that the glare seen when photographing the sun is actually part of it, do you? do you actually believe that obvious photographic artifacts are part of the sun? because that and severe mental retardation are the only possible explanations for your idiotic comments.

>Show me a sunset using a solar filter from a plane
already done. >>9748242
aerial footage of the setting sun through a solar filter, boom. now you'll come up with an excuse to throw that out.

>>9750401
>Webm shows it gets smaller and further away.
anyone can look at your webm and clearly see that you're lying.
>Why doesn't the sun go down behind the horizon
...except it obviously does.

you can clearly see the last edge of the sun slipping behind the curve of the earth; all that appears to "shrink" is the massive amounts of glare and bloom (again, why is shrinking only ever visible in such low-quality videos with rampant camera artifacts?) which recede as the setting sun is dimmed by the oblique angle through the atmosphere.
this goes beyond proof-by-shitty-instrumentation and approaches proof-by-hallucinatory-tendency-to-see-proof-in-footage-that-actually-disproves.

>>9750625
>you also cannot dismiss anything that is accepted by the majority as false simply because it is part of the majority.
I can if that's your only argument, that's how fallacies work.

>So universities were always teaching the correct thing.
They were teaching the wrong definition.

>HOWEVER, having mathematical models to back up your theory is a NECESSARY condition for having a valid theory.
Not true in science, mathematics is just the language of quantity in science, mathematics breaks down a scientific theory into useful, predictive equations, but they are not necessary to prove the theory. You can use mathematics to describe anything you want.

>>9750694
>t. thinks only perfect spheres can be described as round

What is this anon?

>>9750628
You are the one that claimed the sun doesn't change diameter between 12 and 5pm, so where's your proof to back it up?

>>9750636
So you therefore reject the notion that perspective plays any role in sunset/sunrise? What proof do you have to confirm this?

>fool, I work with complicated mathematical models (just did a project involving CO2 sequestration) and spatial statistical methods (my masters work was on morphometric ontogeny). my bread and butter involves the kind of math that apparently terrifies you because, again, it's too complex for your tiny brain to make sense of.
You're only doing that because a teacher said you're shit at mathematics.

>my argument is that you believe math is inherently untrustworthy to the point of outright DISMISSING anything that involves math. maybe this explains why you don't understand basic geometry.
No, mathematics is not inherently untrustworthy, the axioms on which it is based can be. Big difference.

>>9750706
>I can if that’s you’re only argument
True, but that is definitely not the only argument for earth being a sphere. It’s ironic that you would point this out considering that the only argument for earth being flat is the lack of curvature observable to the naked eye at small regions about one’s location

>they were teaching the wrong definition
Are you retarded? Do you think somewhere out in the universe, there’s a stone tablet with the correct definition of a planet and we’re just trying our best to get as close to what it says as possible?

>not true in science
Ok, fine, qualitative predictions are still valid if they yield predictive power. That being said however, your theory is NOT valid if it contradicts a theory that contains a mathematical framework that accurately predicts what is yielded in experiments.
Consequently, your theory is also incorrect if it contradicts what is observed.

Tell me, if every experiment you can do is consistent with earth being a spheroid, and the math predicts the exact numbers yielded by experiment (again, to within experimental error) and a competing theory contradicting the original theory has no quantitative predictions whatsoever and avoids being invalidated simply because it cannot predict anything at all, which is correct?

>>9750467
what is this video intended to show?

>>9750533
>we edited this image to remove the curvature
so they admit to taking footage with a fish-eye lens and then digitally removing the curvature from the lens?
what's to stop them from removing actual curvature of the horizon too? it's pretty evident that the footage still has some distortion in it.
why not just use a non-fish-eye lens in the first place? again, proof-by-shitty-instrumentation.
oh wait, turns out when you do take high-altitude footage using a lens with no distortion, you actually can see the curvature of the earth.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOsxgGeABGM
amateur.

>>9750579
>the hurdles at the back would be distorted the most by the water because perspective forces them to be closer to the water, yet they are the exact same height.
again, you do not understand perspective AT ALL.
the apparent height of a far-off hurdle might be smaller, but so will the height of the "distortion layer". I refer to what I said before: you're treating perspective as a magic wand used to explain away anything that you can't make sense of.

>>9750662
>Most Vaccines contain either aluminum or mercury.
wrong. thimerosal was phased out ages ago and aluminum adjuvants are fairly rare in childhood vaccines.
>The purpose of these metals is simple, to agitate the immune system
partly true. aluminum is used for a similar purpose as an adjuvant, but thimerosal is an antifungal, used primarily to keep multi-dose vials safe for effective mass vaccination programs in areas without a lot of infrastructure.
>why do those for vaccines commonly use the argument, "If your child is not vaccinated, mine will get sick".
because a small minority of children have immune disorders and can't be vaccinated and must rely on herd immunity, and because ALL infants can't be vaccinated until their immune systems finish booting up a few months after birth, during which time they're vulnerable.

>Search for links
easy to tell other people to search when you don't actually have any evidence :^)

>>9750668
>a solar filter does not block out most of the sun like you apparently think it does. it simply dims everything by the same amount, so that only the brightest things (like the sun) can be seen. think of it as a really strong pair of sunglasses.
Therefore you're claiming that the "core" of the sun is the same brightness as the "surface" of the sun? Proof please?

>that's funny, because in >>9747944 (You) you literally said a solar filter could be used as evidence for the sun's size.
which requires fewer assumptions? solar filters simultaneously can and cannot be evidence for the apparent size of the sun...or you made a stupid claim, got BTFO, and are now desperately trying to backpedal? Occam's Razor says it's the second!
It can only be used as proof once the sun becomes smaller than it's being shown through a solar filter, otherwise it's pointless.

>yes, but it is absorbed by the cooler outer layers and re-emitted. your inability to understand the sun doesn't mean its actual structure is impossible.
Bizarre imagination you have. So the sun is brighter in its "core", but this brightness isn't detectable because the less bright outer layers absorb and re-emit it? Why doesn't a solar filter remove the outer layer light and show the brighter core?

>that's footage of the annular eclipse of 2012, captured through a solar filter.
That gif shows the sun changing size and brightness, how is that possible?

>please explain, how does a mass spectrometer work? how can it tell me the elemental makeup of a substance?
By detecting the electromagnetic frequencies.

>>9750701
>you don't actually think that the glare seen when photographing the sun is actually part of it, do you?
No I do not, however if the glare gets smaller and smaller, then that is evidence the object is moving further away.

>aerial footage of the setting sun through a solar filter, boom. now you'll come up with an excuse to throw that out.
I said a plane... And seeing two sunsets by increasing altitude is expected on a flat earth.

>you can clearly see the last edge of the sun slipping behind the curve of the earth
Post a screenshot proving this.

>>9750689
>Surely these things are required beforehand in order for parallax to be accurate.
if you knew ANY geometry, you'd know this is a stupid statement. if you know the distance between your observation points, you can derive the distances to the observed objects.

>What I do know is that the earth is flat, so any evidence that supposedly supports a globe either works on a flat earth or is bullshit. The beauty of fundamental (and true) axioms means you can reject "evidence" that goes against this fundamental axiom.
in other words, if evidence contradicts your opinion, it must be wrong. no amount of evidence, no matter how reliable and conclusive, could ever change your mind.
congratulations; you've admitted that your flat-earth model is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. you may now >>>/x/

>>9750689
>Are you using an example of a local light source? That's not evidence for the globe model.
ah yes, as we all know, optics works entirely differently on large scales then on small scales.
I'm providing you with a simple experiment that you can do in your mum's basement, and you're throwing every tantrum you've got in you to have an excuse not to try it. what's the matter, big guy? scared to collect a little evidence?

>Surely, when the sunlight hits the earth, the rays are parallel and cover the entire earth equally, just not those clouds?
the angle of outgoing reflected light is dependent on the angle of incoming light. to return to the magazine model, the entire room is illuminated by the lamp, but the reflection will only be visible if the magazine is in a location where the angles between it and the lamp and it and your eyes are approximately equal.

>Look at the video
turns out some people have gotten to the video before I did and it's got a few problems.
>https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/10/analysis-dogcam-footage-does-hotspot.html
according to the timestamp and admitted location, the sun would have been overhead in Cambodia at the time of the Dogcam footage. how do you reconcile that with the claim that the sun was right overhead in the Black Sea and creating a "hotspot"?

and again, why have the alleged "hotspots" never been observed from within them? and why do observers at different locations see the same "hotspot" in different places?

>>9750729
>It’s ironic that you would point this out considering that the only argument for earth being flat is the lack of curvature observable to the naked eye at small regions about one’s location
Straw man argument. If that was the only evidence I'd still believe the globe.

>Are you retarded? Do you think somewhere out in the universe, there’s a stone tablet with the correct definition of a planet and we’re just trying our best to get as close to what it says as possible?
You seemed to claim that because universities and colleges teach things, that automatically makes it true, which is obviously nonsense.

>your theory is NOT valid if it contradicts a theory that contains a mathematical framework that accurately predicts what is yielded in experiments.
What, like Newton's theory of gravity vs Einstein's?

>Tell me, if every experiment you can do is consistent with earth being a spheroid, and the math predicts the exact numbers yielded by experiment (again, to within experimental error) and a competing theory contradicting the original theory has no quantitative predictions whatsoever and avoids being invalidated simply because it cannot predict anything at all, which is correct?
The former obviously, but that in no way describes the globe model at all, quite the contrary.

>>9750737
A local sun that's not setting behind globe curvature.

>oh wait, turns out when you do take high-altitude footage using a lens with no distortion, you actually can see the curvature of the earth.
Kek, notice how the horizon line is suspiciously at the top of the frame? All lenses have curvature, and they will curve more at the top and bottom, but if the horizon is in the middle of the frame, it's completely flat. Try again.

>the apparent height of a far-off hurdle might be smaller, but so will the height of the "distortion layer"
Not the height of the distortion layer in front of the far-off hurdle.

>>9750719
so, you have no comeback about perspective? (nice try at changing the subject and shifting the burden though.) do you admit that rotating the camera doesn't actually change perspective?

>You're only doing that because a teacher said you're shit at mathematics.
>projecting this hard
actually, I largely credit my 8th grade geometry teacher for inspiring my career as a scientist. he saw my potential and encouraged me to join my high school's math club, which got me into the nerdier side of things. RIP RS
and the real reasons for doing those things I mentioned is:
>I wanted to better understand solute transport in the subsurface because of how it impacts diagenetic alteration of fossils, so I took hydrology
>I was unsure whether I wanted to study vert or invert paleo, so my MS advisor recommended a morphometrics project since those methods have broad utility in both fields

>mathematics is not inherently untrustworthy, the axioms on which it is based can be. Big difference.
since you defined "the earth is flat" is an axiom, what you really mean is "dogma" or "opinion". "axiom" has a specific meaning in mathematics.
what you really mean is "I don't like math that proves my opinions wrong", which is a perfectly natural and completely infantile stance to take.

>>9750785
>if you know the distance between your observation points, you can derive the distances to the observed objects.
And how can you know if it's the observer moving, or the observed object? And how can you know the size of this observed object?

>in other words, if evidence contradicts your opinion, it must be wrong. no amount of evidence, no matter how reliable and conclusive, could ever change your mind.
>congratulations; you've admitted that your flat-earth model is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. you may now >>>/x/

The model is unfalsifiable because it's fundamentally true in the same sense that a perfect circle can not have any corners is unfalsifiable and fundamentally true. Without self-evident truths like this, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere.

>>9750769
>Therefore you're claiming that the "core" of the sun is the same brightness as the "surface" of the sun?
No, I am not. You must be 18 or older to post here.

>It can only be used as proof once the sun becomes smaller than it's being shown through a solar filter
aaand as before, there's literally no evidence that solar filters crop the sun. your only reasoning for it is that it MUST be true in order for the earth to be flat; and as you stated >>9750689, your belief that the earth is flat comes before all evidence.

>So the sun is brighter in its "core", but this brightness isn't detectable because the less bright outer layers absorb and re-emit it?
Yes. This fairly simple stuff.
Similarly, the Earth's interior is much hotter (and therefore brighter) than its outer crust, and yet the only light emitted from its surface is low-intensity infrared light.
>inb4 muh solids
why would fluids be unable to absorb light and re-emit it at lower intensity?

>Why doesn't a solar filter remove the outer layer light and show the brighter core?
The core's light is not being drowned out by the light from the outer layers, you imbecile. It is being absorbed by the outer layers themselves. You might as well ask why an infrared-blocking filter can't remove the crust's radiation and show you the glow of the hot mantle.

>That gif shows the sun changing size and brightness, how is that possible?
because rather than a timelapse made from a continuous video, that is a series of separate photos stitched together, with different levels of zoom and exposure. (also, are you really surprised that the sun's total brightness changes during an eclipse? boy, you could not pour water out of a boot with instructions written on the heel.)
you still can't explain how the annular eclipse is visible, huh? ready to admit that solar filters don't actually crop the sun?

>By detecting the electromagnetic frequencies.
aaand how does a mass spectrometer detect the electromagnetic frequencies?

>>9750789
>ah yes, as we all know, optics works entirely differently on large scales then on small scales.
Well, gravity seems to, doesn't it?

>I'm providing you with a simple experiment that you can do in your mum's basement, and you're throwing every tantrum you've got in you to have an excuse not to try it. what's the matter, big guy? scared to collect a little evidence?
I understand your example and accept it, but only as proof of a flat earth because that's what it is (local light source shining upon a flat surface). Now try and prove this with a sun that is outside of the closed system it is shining upon, as well as it shining upon a sphere.

>the angle of outgoing reflected light is dependent on the angle of incoming light. to return to the magazine model
You mean the flat model?

>according to the timestamp and admitted location, the sun would have been overhead in Cambodia at the time of the Dogcam footage. how do you reconcile that with the claim that the sun was right overhead in the Black Sea and creating a "hotspot"?
I can reconcile that as something consistent with a local sun above a flat plane.

>and again, why have the alleged "hotspots" never been observed from within them? and why do observers at different locations see the same "hotspot" in different places?
This brings up an interesting point. The subjectivity of light. For example, person A is on the beach looking out at the ocean during a sunset. He sees a reflection of light from the sun on the water that goes straight in his direction. Person B is 5 miles away on the same beach, watching the same sunset, but also sees the reflection of the sun's light across the water come to him. This is again proof of perspective altering the sun's light.

>>9750783
>if the glare gets smaller and smaller, then that is evidence the object is moving further away
no, you retard, it is not. it's just as easily explained by part of the object being blocked, or its brightness being reduced.
congratulations, you're falling back on your old strategy of "when the evidence is consistent with multiple explanations, the one I want to be true must be true".

>I said a plane
why is a drone meaningfully different from a plane?

>Post a screenshot proving this.
the video itself proves it. it's a multitude of screenshots strung together.

>>9750800
>A local sun that's not setting behind globe curvature.
perhaps I wasn't specific enough. what about the video purports to show that?

>notice how the horizon line is suspiciously at the top of the frame? All lenses have curvature, and they will curve more at the top and bottom
nice try. he pans over to the instrument panel and the lines of its housing remain straight and undistorted EVEN AT the top of the frame, showing that there's negligible distortion from the camera.
none so blind as them that will not see.

>Not the height of the distortion layer in front of the far-off hurdle.
aaand by simple geometry, the only part of the "distortion layer" that lies between the far-off object and the viewer is a small region (how small depends on the angle) directly in front of the object.
again, you don't understand basic perspective and are using it as a magic wand to hand-wave away the fact that your evidence doesn't show what you say it does.

>>9750816
>how can you know if it's the observer moving, or the observed object?
which is moving is irrelevant to the measurement; just the relative motion is sufficient.
>And how can you know the size of this observed object?
it's not necessary to know the size of an inferior body in order to use its transit to establish the distance to the sun.
you are coming up with irrelevant questions to cover for your pitiful inability to understand how parallax measurements work.

>The model is unfalsifiable because it's fundamentally true in the same sense that a perfect circle can not have any corners is unfalsifiable and fundamentally true.
A circle is cornerless by definition and is a purely mathematical object that doesn't exist in the real world.
Unlike a perfect circle, the Earth exists in the real world and can be measured. We don't need to make basic assumptions about its shape because we can go and measure it directly.
Your whole entire argument comes down to the laughable claim of "the Earth is flat because I say it is and because I really want it to be". You say "self-evident", but that's just another way to say "I can't find any evidence for it, so I'll pretend it doesn't need evidence".

>>9750783
>No I do not, however if the glare gets smaller and smaller, then that is evidence the object is moving further away.
That's one possible explanation, but it doesn't rule out other explanations.
However, observations support that it is actually the fact the light has to travel through more atmosphere and is thus more scattered, see the fact it changes color.
There's one other thing, too. Under the right conditions you can observe the true disc of the Sun with the naked eye away from sunrise and sunset. The density of the clouds needs to be just right but in the last two years I have witnessed it about four times. As everyone knows, personal observations trump everything else.

>And seeing two sunsets by increasing altitude is expected on a flat earth.
The flat earth model "expects" everything you observe in the globe model, simply because if it didn't then it would be easily proven false.
The problem is that in the flat earth model they need to come up with new explanations for everything, making up shit for every observation like another bandaid holding their shit together.
The flat earth reasoning for the Sun becoming visible again is hilarious and hasn't been demonstrated on a smaller scale.

>>9750843
>gravity seems to, doesn't it?
it doesn't.

>try and prove this with a sun that is outside of the closed system it is shining upon
you don't know what a closed system is.
>as well as it shining upon a sphere
works just fine. blow up a balloon (not a sphere, but round enough to work the same way) and switch on a lamp. two people standing in different places will see the lamp's light reflecting off different parts of the balloon.

>I can reconcile that as something consistent with a local sun above a flat plane.
how? how can the sun, under your model, be directly overhead in Cambodia while creating a localized hotspot over the Black Sea? how can that possibly work?
there's no shame in admitting the model doesn't work, you know. the mark of a thinking (as in, really THINKING) human being is our ability to change our minds based on evidence.

>This is again proof of perspective altering the sun's light.
you're doing that perspective-as-a-magic-wand thing again.
light is not subjective. the light IS reflecting off the water towards both people, but there is no hotspot; just reflections that are only visible from certain locations with the right viewing angle.

and I regret to inform you that your picture is a computer-generated image. it's a frame from a CGI video clip by an artist who goes by savagerus. you can see it in his portfolio.
>https://videohive.net/user/savagerus/portfolio?page=4

>>9750843
>Well, gravity seems to, doesn't it?
False equivalence. Why should gravity (or magnetism because they are similar in this) work the same way as optics/light?

>For example, person A is on the beach looking out at the ocean during a sunset. He sees a reflection of light from the sun on the water that goes straight in his direction. Person B is 5 miles away on the same beach, watching the same sunset, but also sees the reflection of the sun's light across the water come to him. This is again proof of perspective altering the sun's light.
I wonder what would happen if they compared angles.

>>9750831
>aaand as before, there's literally no evidence that solar filters crop the sun.
Are there videos of other bright objects being seen through a solar filter? That would be good evidence to see how it affects the size of whatever it's filtering.

>why would fluids be unable to absorb light and re-emit it at lower intensity?
Wait, the sun is made of fluids now? I thought gravitation predicts that the densest matter will be at the core? Is the sun denser on its outer surface that its core?

>You might as well ask why an infrared-blocking filter can't remove the crust's radiation and show you the glow of the hot mantle.
Hardly comparable, one is solid, the other isn't.

>>9750831
>because rather than a timelapse made from a continuous video, that is a series of separate photos stitched together, with different levels of zoom and exposure. (also, are you really surprised that the sun's total brightness changes during an eclipse? boy, you could not pour water out of a boot with instructions written on the heel.)
>you still can't explain how the annular eclipse is visible, huh? ready to admit that solar filters don't actually crop the sun?
It's good evidence but I'm not completely convinced, no, not until I have a complete understanding of how solar filters work, I remain unconvinced they show the "true" size of the sun because that's impossible.

>aaand how does a mass spectrometer detect the electromagnetic frequencies?
The same way it does it now.

>>9750851
>no, you retard, it is not. it's just as easily explained by part of the object being blocked, or its brightness being reduced.
>congratulations, you're falling back on your old strategy of "when the evidence is consistent with multiple explanations, the one I want to be true must be true".
Notice I said 'evidence', not 'proof'. However, you cannot deny that decreased glare is consistent with a light source moving further away, so glare is not a good argument to prove a globe because it's also expected in the flat model.

>why is a drone meaningfully different from a plane?
Are you really asking that? A plane can go much higher for much longer, therefore a better and full view of a sunset.

>the video itself proves it. it's a multitude of screenshots strung together.
Post one that proves your claim.

>perhaps I wasn't specific enough. what about the video purports to show that?
What's the sun setting behind?

>nice try. he pans over to the instrument panel and the lines of its housing remain straight and undistorted EVEN AT the top of the frame, showing that there's negligible distortion from the camera.
At no point in the video does he centre the horizon with the middle of the frame, looks very deliberate because he knows this would disprove the curvature as lens distortion.

>aaand by simple geometry, the only part of the "distortion layer" that lies between the far-off object and the viewer is a small region (how small depends on the angle) directly in front of the object.

The water underneath the first hurdle will be higher, perspective wise than the water underneath the furthest hurdles, therefore the furthest hurdles will be covered by the water in front it, as well as affected by it, just as the sun is.

OP here. I like how in almost 300 replies, there was not a single good argument against my post, as I expected. All stupid science denialism, or autists thinking "correct" means "literal Truth about the universe".

There were a few people who were well-meaning but a bit misinformed about entanglement, those were the most valuable contributions really. Good lads (or lasses, I wouldn't know).

Oh and engaging with flattards really doesn't work. They argue worse than a Monty Python sketch.

>>9750876
>which is moving is irrelevant to the measurement
Surely the speed at which the observer, or what is being observed is important for an accurate result?

>>9750876
>it's not necessary to know the size of an inferior body in order to use its transit to establish the distance to the sun.
>you are coming up with irrelevant questions to cover for your pitiful inability to understand how parallax measurements work.
Parallax has to rely on some previous axioms to be accurate, which axioms regarding the sun or Venus are true which makes their distances as calculated by parallax true?

>Unlike a perfect circle, the Earth exists in the real world and can be measured. We don't need to make basic assumptions about its shape because we can go and measure it directly.
Exactly, what direct measurements of the earth have actually taken place to confirms its spheroidness? There aren't any.

>>9750903
>Are there videos of other bright objects being seen through a solar filter?
Not solar filters to the best of my knowledge, but other ND (neutral density) filters work the same way.
Burning magnesium seen through a filter:
>https://imgur.com/gallery/BBeefuZ
(source video on Vimeo also shows it without the filter, for comparison)

>Wait, the sun is made of fluids now? I thought gravitation predicts that the densest matter will be at the core? Is the sun denser on its outer surface that its core?
the outer layers of the sun are plasma, a form of fluid in which the temperatures are high enough to not only break apart molecules but also strip electrons away from their nuclei. the solar core is also plasma, but much hotter and denser.

>Hardly comparable, one is solid, the other isn't.
just like I inb4ed, fluids can absorb radiation just as easily as solids can. just because the fluids we're most familiar with (air and water) are mostly transparent to our eyes doesn't mean that fluids can't be opaque.

>>9750903
>until I have a complete understanding of how solar filters work, I remain unconvinced they show the "true" size of the sun
if you reject anything that you can't completely understand, you'll reject almost everything in the world.
do you understand how sunglasses work? an ND filter (solar filters are usually one of those) is just like a really strong pair of sunglasses.
>because that's impossible.
why? because if it's true, it means that the earth isn't flat?
the truth will set you free...

>>9750903
>The same way it does it now.
in other words, you don't know how a mass spec works.
I do, though.

>>9750922
>A plane can go much higher for much longer, therefore a better and full view of a sunset.
how does the first imply the second?

>What's the sun setting behind?
the curved surface of the earth, obviously.
(flatheads will reject this out-of-hand because they are literally unable to imagine being wrong.)

> looks very deliberate because he knows this would disprove the curvature as lens distortion.
this would be a good point EXCEPT that the pan over the instrument panel PROVES that there's no significant lens distortion.

>The water underneath the first hurdle will be higher, perspective wise than the water underneath the furthest hurdles
pic related. you're telling me that the water nearer the viewer appears to be higher than the water in the distance? what are you, schizophrenic?

>>9750930
>Oh and engaging with flattards really doesn't work. They argue worse than a Monty Python sketch.
I've noticed...

>>9750947
>what are you, schizophrenic?
Many of them are, sadly. The nasty thing about the disease is that it convinces the afflicted that any attempt to convince them they are ill and need treatment is part of a conspiracy. The disease convinces them that medication will make them crazy. While it is actually a fairly manageable illness if treated well.

>>9750758
>link

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

>>9750758

>link

http://info.cmsri.org/blog/-discovery-of-shockingly-high-levels-of-aluminum-in-brains-of-individuals-with-autism-suggests-link-with-aluminum-containing-vaccines

>>9750938
>Surely the speed at which the observer, or what is being observed is important for an accurate result?
As long as you know the difference in velocity (like I said, relative motion) it's irrelevant which one is actually moving.

>Parallax has to rely on some previous axioms to be accurate
yes, axioms of Euclidean geometry. things like the parallel postulate and the congruency of right angles.

>Exactly, what direct measurements of the earth have actually taken place to confirms its spheroidness?
photography by satellites and spacecraft for one.
oh wait, those prove that the Earth is spheroidal and therefore, according to you, must somehow be fake. can't explain why, you just are convinced deep down that they must be fake, otherwise--audible gasp--your opinions would be WRONG!!!

>>9750758

>link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29413113

>>9750940
>(source video on Vimeo also shows it without the filter, for comparison)
I can't find it.

>the outer layers of the sun are plasma, a form of fluid in which the temperatures are high enough to not only break apart molecules but also strip electrons away from their nuclei. the solar core is also plasma, but much hotter and denser.
Therefore the sun is a fluid made from dense helium and hydrogen that's really hot which would usually make them less dense? These mental gymnastics are ridiculous. Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun was electromagnetic plasma?

>just like I inb4ed, fluids can absorb radiation just as easily as solids can. just because the fluids we're most familiar with (air and water) are mostly transparent to our eyes doesn't mean that fluids can't be opaque.
It's electromagnetic.

>if you reject anything that you can't completely understand, you'll reject almost everything in the world.
Not true. I don't completely understand how speakers are able to emit multiple frequencies at once, but I know they can because I hear it, so I don't reject them. But when it comes to the earth and the stars etc, they do not match with what my senses tell me, and there are more logical alternative explanations.

>why? because if it's true, it means that the earth isn't flat?
Not at all, show a sunset with a solar filter from a plane with a clear view. Why hasn't this been done yet?

>>9750922
>so glare is not a good argument to prove a globe because it's also expected in the flat model.
It's not argument for a globe, it's an argument against the validity of those videos as proof.
The glare obscures the view of the Sun which means you can't actually see if it is changing size.

And I'll say it again, the flat model "expects" everything we observe because otherwise it would be easily falsified, the problem is that the explanations for what we observe are adhoc

.>>9750903
>It's good evidence but I'm not completely convinced, no, not until I have a complete understanding of how solar filters work, I remain unconvinced they show the "true" size of the sun because that's impossible.
https://www.amazon.com/Welding-Helmets/b
Buy something with a shade range 12 or higher.

>>9750965
>>9750968
First off, the second link is simply a write-up referring to the first.
Secondly, the study in the first link was funded by the CMSRI, an interest group with a history of promoting pseudoscience.
Thirdly, one of the authors on the study (Christopher Exley) is on the review board of the publishing journal, raising questions about the rigor of the peer review process.
Fourthly, there are some HUGE problems with the study itself:
>https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/11/29/christopher-exley-using-bad-science-to-demonize-aluminum-adjuvants-in-vaccines/
>sample size is small
>NO CONTROLS
>measured values from replicates on the same sample vary widely, suggesting inaccurate measurement techniques
>other research gives values for Al concentration in non-autistic brain tissue consistent with values from this study
>interpretation not supported by data
thanks for confirming that antivaxxer """"science"""" is just as sloppy as everyone already thought.

>>9750947
>in other words, you don't know how a mass spec works.
>I do, though.
A mass spectrometer uses electromagnetic radiation to detect non-electromagnetic radiation? Is that what you're saying?

>how does the first imply the second?
The higher you are the further your horizon becomes, so you can see further, and the atmosphere is also less dense, again allowing you to see further/more clearly.

>the curved surface of the earth, obviously.
Where is it?

>this would be a good point EXCEPT that the pan over the instrument panel PROVES that there's no significant lens distortion.
Oh dear, are you trying to argue that lenses are flat now? Do you know what would prove there's no lens distortion? By filming the horizon centred in the frame. This is ignoring the fact that even on the globe model you cannot see curvature from a commercial plane, so you're arguing against globalists as well.

>pic related. you're telling me that the water nearer the viewer appears to be higher than the water in the distance? what are you, schizophrenic?
The hurdles picture was taken much lower to the ground. In your picture, the water behind the horizon line is being covered by the water in front of it.

>I've noticed...
No you haven't.

>>9750959
Oh look the resident psychiatrists are on patrol. Labelling someone schizophrenic is a cop-out. But if you want to play that game, I would claim that believing the globe model is schizophrenic, just socially acceptable schizophrenia.

>>9750979
>I can't find it.
the link it right below the video on the imgur page, you toddler.
skip to 1:26

>Therefore the sun is a fluid made from dense helium and hydrogen that's really hot which would usually make them less dense?
you do not understand how density works. high temperature promotes lower density, but compression by overlying layers promotes higher density. and as I've stated before, the sun's outer layers are less dense than the core.
>electromagnetic plasma?
this is technobabble. gibberish. that's a meaningless phrase right there.

>It's electromagnetic.
is this your latest pseudo-scientific buzzword? you're done invoking perspective to explain why your model fails, now you're waving the "electromagnetic" wand?

>show a sunset with a solar filter from a plane with a clear view. Why hasn't this been done yet?
because only flatheads care enough to spend the money lugging an expensive camera on a high-altitude flight. the rest of us know from the wealth of other information that the earth is round.
why would this make a difference in what is observed? we've seen sunsets through solar filters from the ground and from a few hundred feet up, and we've seen sunsets from high altitude planes. why would your alleged shrinking effect not be visible other than under one extremely specific set of conditions?
when someone inevitably does (YouTuber Wolfie6020 seems to do a lot of high-altitude flying, and he's done some solar filter photography) and it shows the sun setting beyond the curve of the earth, what will your excuse be then?

>>9750971
>As long as you know the difference in velocity (like I said, relative motion) it's irrelevant which one is actually moving.
Relativity teaches you to know things you don't actually know.

>yes, axioms of Euclidean geometry. things like the parallel postulate and the congruency of right angles.
And what scientific proof do you have for these axioms being true?

>photography by satellites and spacecraft for one.
Photography is not scientific, empirical evidence. I'm not going into the whole fake pictures of earth conspiracy even though it's true, I'm going to outright reject that as scientific proof. I want empirical measurements, like measurements of Kansas which showed it was flatter than a pancake - gravity not working in Kansas?

>>9744806
I mostly agree but I'm scared of vaccines desu

>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
I stopped there.

>>9750980
>It's not argument for a globe, it's an argument against the validity of those videos as proof.
It's all globalists have got. How do globalists explain the glare getting smaller if it's not moving further away?

>And I'll say it again, the flat model "expects" everything we observe because otherwise it would be easily falsified, the problem is that the explanations for what we observe are adhoc
How does that not apply to the globe model? It's been in development for 500+ years.

>>9751024
Got an argument to go with that? Entanglement doesn't count, as it does not allow you to send a FTL message.

>>9751001
>A mass spectrometer uses electromagnetic radiation to detect non-electromagnetic radiation? Is that what you're saying?
No, you retard. This is how a mass spec works:
A sample is ionized through heating and then blasted into a vacuum chamber with a strong electromagnetic field running through it with field lines orthogonal to the direction of movement. Particles moving through this magnetic field experience a magnetic force perpendicular to their motion, causing them to move in circular arcs in the plane orthogonal to the direction of the field lines. After covering a semicircle of motion, they slam into a wall covered with tiny little detectors. The distance between where the particles were injected into the chamber and where they impact the sensor is proportional to their charge divided by their mass, allowing us to infer the mass of the constituent particles.
It's not about detecting radiation; it's about measuring the mass of the atoms in a sample.

>The higher you are the further your horizon becomes, so you can see further, and the atmosphere is also less dense, again allowing you to see further/more clearly.
why does this matter for purposes of viewing the sunset? clearly we can see far enough to see the setting sun.

>Do you know what would prove there's no lens distortion? By filming the horizon centred in the frame.
How do you explain the lack of distortion in the instrument panel? How is that possible?
>even on the globe model you cannot see curvature from a commercial plane, so you're arguing against globalists as well.
read video description, moron.
he's not on a commercial jet; he's flying his own plane at a much higher altitude.

>the water behind the horizon line is being covered by the water in front of it
...yes, this is due to the curvature of the earth.
if it were a perspective effect, as you claim, the water just in front of the horizon line would be covered by the water nearest the viewer, in a violation of all laws of perspective.

>>9751027
I explained it in >>9750887

>>9751016
>Relativity teaches you to know things you don't actually know.
Please don't get the concept of relative motion confused with general (or special) relativity, you moron.
And please, enough with the technobabble.

>And what scientific proof do you have for these axioms being true?
What, axioms like "all right angles are congruent"? get a load of this guy dot bee em pee
Remember, geometric figures exist only in the language of mathematics. Saying "a line and a point not on that line determine a plane" is no different from saying "a circle has no corners".

>Photography is not scientific, empirical evidence.
It literally is.
And if it isn't, why are you posting photos and videos and claiming that they're evidence for your side?

>>9751027
>How do globalists explain the glare getting smaller if it's not moving further away?
by most of the sun being blocked out by the curvature of the earth, causing less light to reach the camera, you imbecile.

>How does that not apply to the globe model?
With the globe model, we make predictions of what we see, and the observations match the predictions.
With the flat model, you make predictions of what we see, and the observations contradict the predictions, so you come up with excuses why that is.
That's your difference for you.

>>9751015
>the link it right below the video on the imgur page, you toddler.
ND filters are not the same as solar filters, because solar filters block out UV and infrared light. Need an example using a solar filter please.

>you do not understand how density works. high temperature promotes lower density, but compression by overlying layers promotes higher density. and as I've stated before, the sun's outer layers are less dense than the core.
Then goes on to say:
>this is technobabble. gibberish. that's a meaningless phrase right there.
You think you're talking sense? You sound like a schizophrenic.

>is this your latest pseudo-scientific buzzword? you're done invoking perspective to explain why your model fails, now you're waving the "electromagnetic" wand?
Electromagnetism has changed the world, relativity has done nothing.

>why would this make a difference in what is observed?
How many more times? You can see further, allowing you to see the sun disappear it its entirety, rather than being blocked by perspective + atmosphere + mirroring etc when on ground level.
>Wolfie6020
Dishonest fraud.
>and it shows the sun setting beyond the curve of the earth
Show me please.

>>9750887
>However, observations support that it is actually the fact the light has to travel through more atmosphere and is thus more scattered, see the fact it changes color.
Again, this is consistent with a flat model and a local sun, it actually makes far more sense than a 93 million mile away sun being affected by the rotation of a tiny (in comparison) earth.

>you can observe the true disc of the Sun with the naked eye away from sunrise and sunset. The density of the clouds needs to be just right but in the last two years I have witnessed it about four times.
Kek
>the sun is much smaller than it looks I swear, you just need clouds to block it to see it!
Good for you, you can believe that if you want.

>The problem is that in the flat earth model they need to come up with new explanations for everything, making up shit for every observation like another bandaid holding their shit together.
The globe model has had 500+ years to come up with its bullshit, what do you expect?

>The flat earth reasoning for the Sun becoming visible again is hilarious and hasn't been demonstrated on a smaller scale.
Imagine I have a candle and I walk further and further away, are you going to be able to see that light forever? Or will the atmosphere eventually get the best of it?

>>9750895
>it doesn't.
So show me water conforming to the exterior of a sphere then. Oh, you can't? Because you need something of bigger scale to show that?

>you don't know what a closed system is.
Oh? What is it?

>works just fine. blow up a balloon (not a sphere, but round enough to work the same way) and switch on a lamp. two people standing in different places will see the lamp's light reflecting off different parts of the balloon.
And where is the lamp placed?

>how? how can the sun, under your model, be directly overhead in Cambodia while creating a localized hotspot over the Black Sea? how can that possibly work?
Due to your magazine example.

>light is not subjective. the light IS reflecting off the water towards both people
You've just contradicted yourself. How is light not subjective if the reflections are subject to the observer?

>and I regret to inform you that your picture is a computer-generated image. it's a frame from a CGI video clip by an artist who goes by savagerus. you can see it in his portfolio.
Doesn't matter, the sun does it in real life.

>>9751034
>ionized
You know what that implies, right? Electromagnetism. Nothing in your description points to anything else other than electromagnetism.

>why does this matter for purposes of viewing the sunset? clearly we can see far enough to see the setting sun.
Because if you want to prove the flat model wrong, then you must film a sunset from a high enough altitude where you could see a full sunset on a flat earth.

>How do you explain the lack of distortion in the instrument panel? How is that possible?
Because it's not a flat, straight line.

> he's flying his own plane at a much higher altitude.
If it's not above 70,000ft he won't see it.

>if it were a perspective effect, as you claim, the water just in front of the horizon line would be covered by the water nearest the viewer, in a violation of all laws of perspective.
If you laid down on the floor and looked out at the sea, the water in front of you would be much higher than it would be if you were standing up.

>>9751050
>ND filters are not the same as solar filters, because solar filters block out UV and infrared light. Need an example using a solar filter please.
UV and IR are invisible to the human eye and to standard cameras. The sun won't look any different through a solar filter as through an ND filter.
You are making up excuses to try and cover for your model's repeated pathetic failures.

>You think you're talking sense? You sound like a schizophrenic.
Your inability to understand fairly simple concepts regarding density is your problem, not mine.

>Electromagnetism has changed the world, relativity has done nothing.
Not only is the second part not true, this has nothing to do with your attempts to handwave problems with your claims away by just saying it's electromagnetic.

>You can see further, allowing you to see the sun disappear it its entirety, rather than being blocked by perspective + atmosphere + mirroring etc when on ground level.
and when we've observed the sun setting from high altitude planes, it always slips down beyond the horizon rather than shrinking away. you're proven wrong over and over and over again, but you insist that maybe next time it'll show what you claim is there.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2_bpdRSHw
why would the solar filter make a difference?

>Dishonest fraud.
you're just mad that he keeps proving you wrong :^)
>Show me please.
for the sake of argument, if the solar filter high altitude footage DOES show the sun setting behind the earth (as the same footage without the filter already does), what will your response be?

>>9751067
>show me water conforming to the exterior of a sphere then. Oh, you can't? Because you need something of bigger scale to show that?
on the contrary; I need to NOT have something of bigger scale around. the earth's gravity overwhelms the attraction of the water to the sphere. water's not a great example anyway; its hydrogen-bond interactions tend to overwhelm gravitational attractions.

>Because if you want to prove the flat model wrong, then you must film a sunset from a high enough altitude where you could see a full sunset on a flat earth.
ooor I could just film the sun going behind the earth's curvature.
also, you said that photography isn't scientific empirical evidence; why are you now saying it is?

>Because it's not a flat, straight line.
you're saying that the instrument panel is curved, but the distortion makes it appear flat?
how come it's flat throughout the entire video, despite the fact that it's in different parts of the frame in different parts of the video? the ONLY possible explanation is that there's not actually any distortion.

>If it's not above 70,000ft he won't see it.
you say this, but in fact he can and he did.
you say many false things, and reality is not defined by you.

>If you laid down on the floor and looked out at the sea, the water in front of you would be much higher than it would be if you were standing up.
and yet it still wouldn't be in front of the water off in the distance.
why? because that's not how perspective works, though given your outright denial of simple geometry I'm not remotely surprised.

>>9751045
>Please don't get the concept of relative motion confused with general (or special) relativity, you moron.
I'm not, that's how it works in all its forms.

>What, axioms like "all right angles are congruent"? get a load of this guy dot bee em pee
So you haven't got any scientific proof to back up the mathematical models?

>It literally is.
>And if it isn't, why are you posting photos and videos and claiming that they're evidence for your side?

It's second hand observational evidence, which is useful, but can be doctored too. If you want to prove curvature of the earth, then give me the empirical measurements. And you're just going to ignore the fact Kansas is flatter than a pancake?

>by most of the sun being blocked out by the curvature of the earth, causing less light to reach the camera, you imbecile.
But the glare gets smaller much earlier than that.

>With the flat model, you make predictions of what we see, and the observations contradict the predictions, so you come up with excuses why that is.
I'd argue that would apply to you.