/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9955082
You can't beat Einstein m8. We found gravitational waves, gravity probe b detected frame dragging, and it's been most recently verified when a star passed near a black hole: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/star-s-black-hole-encounter-puts-einstein-s-theory-gravity-test
Numerous experiments have confirmed time dilation and atomic clocks are now cheap enough for amateurs to test it
http://www.diyphysics.com/2012/03/15/tom-van-baaks-family-friendly-relativistic-time-dilation-experiment/

>>9955149
no one disputes that physical dilation happens it's the theory that's bunk

>>9955082
It s all bullshit

GR is a non-explanation

"mass bends space and bent space tells matter how to move"

That's not an explanation of the mechanism of gravity. That's just a mathematical model. I could also come up with a model that models gravity. That still doesn't explain the mechanism of gravity.

>>9955149
Post a link to NASA or any science agencyeasuring the size and distance of the Sun

>>9955199
and it is a better model than „masses attract each other depending on distance“ which we had before. If your model is even better than GR, go get your nobel prize

>>9955220
Math models are missing the point. We still don't know the mechanism of gravity. We have a theory of gravitons but have yet to actually "see" them.

Actually keked when scrolling down. Great job opee

>>9955082
When did you realise OP is a moron?, I did just a few sentences ago.

>>9955182
and yet, a bunch of results predicted by this theory turned out to be true
>>9955204
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/135/meta
for the distance to the sun, you're really asking for Earth's ephemeris and for how that is determined, you should read the citations in and their citations:
https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/handle/2014/32032

>>9955204
>sun having an angular displacement equal to its diameter my perspective means the sun literally moved a distance equal to its diameter
you cant make this up lol flatniggers confirmed dumb

>>9955199
>I could also come up with a model that models gravity
Can you come up with one that is more elegant and predicts with more power than GR? I swear some people on this board don't even know what the point or scope of physics is.

so like the majority of modern physics, i.e. quantum physics, we're just ignoring?

>>9955504
flat earthers have Universal Acceleration, which says that the flat earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2

>>9955529
Pretty dumb desu. That theory doesn't explain how other objects exert gravitational forces on each other.

>>9955531
from what I've heard people say on forums, they don't believe objects attract each other. that's part of the lie of gravity, and they'll say it's never been demonstrated.

>>9955082
don’t forget that einstein won his nobel for the photoelectric effect, and contributed significantly to statistical mechanics.

special relativity is empirically correct, too

he may have been a bit too enthusiastic, but he was a great scientist

>>9955545

hell, Einstein didn't even believe in quantum mechanics and wanted it dead, but still helped indispensably there too

>>9955538
Jesus. They cant be helped.

>>9955082
if "this crank" 's theory makes everything from satellites to nuclear power work I'd happily join his cult

>>9955279
you obviouusly have a complete novice's view of relativity
>pssst, gravity isn't even a force kiddo

>>9955555
digits of truth

>>9955572
this

>>9955443
>and yet, a bunch of results predicted by this theory turned out to be true
"no"

>>9955572
>I am such an hedonist that I cannot live without humanists' comfort

>>9956241
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Experimental_verification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

>>9956315
Einstein's theory would predict it would be impossible to detect gravity waves using a laser, because both space AND time are affected, negating any change to be detected.

Explain this.

>>9956315
https://www.labroots.com/trending/space/6384/debate-starts-accuracy-ligo-s-gravitational-wave-data

>>9956350
>negating any change to be detected.
That's not how that works

>>9956370
Explain.

>>9956373

Another studentfag

>Thinking Maxwell equations work with an arbitrary metric

When people instead of writing bullshit will start actually to write equations and try to compute something?
Board full of niggers I degress

>>9956384
Fuck are you babbling about brainlet?

>>9956373
Are you that guy who made that quasi-flater earther thread the other day?

>>9956373
Are you that who made that "what shape is the earth?" thread the other day? The one where OP or someone kept asking nonsense questions about curvature?

>>9956432
Yes, and did you see what happened to the thread when the globe got destroyed?

>>9956436
Your shitty thread got deleted lmao idk what you're talking about

>>9956439
It got deleted when 500+ feet of curvature was missing from Ontario to the Roger's center. Mods don't care about threads until they endanger their retarded sci-fi beliefs.

>>9956441
>500+ feet of curvature was missing from Ontario to the Roger's center
Can you show that mathematically? :^)

>>9956444
Explain this.

>>9955199
>"mass bends space and bent space tells matter how to move"
>That's not an explanation of the mechanism of gravity. That's just a mathematical model
"I don't understand the theory, thus it is wrong".

>>9955547
>hell, Einstein didn't even believe in quantum mechanics and wanted it dead, but still helped indispensably there too
Wrong. Learn history, Einstein didn't like the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but he wasn't against QM.

>>9956350
>Einstein's theory would predict it would be impossible to detect gravity waves using a laser, because both space AND time are affected, negating any change to be detected.
"I don't know the theory, but I'm going to pontificate about it like I'm a leading expert".

>>9956373
>>>9956370
>Explain.
Expand Einstein-Hilbert around Minkovsky metric you can see how it works. Do it, it's a good exercise. Oh, wait, you are too dumb to do it.

>>9956467
>>>r/iamverysmart

>>9956467
>Expand Einstein-Hilbert around Minkovsky metric you can see how it works. Do it, it's a good exercise. Oh, wait, you are too dumb to do it.
Calm down genius. Your retard experiment doesn't work if both space and time are affected, that is a fact.

>>9956486
?

>>9955555
Checked and keked,
I thought it would hard to fathom people who don't believe in gravity, but we live in a society

>>9955149

>>9956451
I would, but there's so much wrong it's hard to know where to start.

Well... how about this: the curvature of the earth is 7.98 inches per mile, giving an expected drop of about 20.5 feet, not whatever insane number this asshole is claiming. 516 feet of drop over 30.84 miles? That's a curvature of over 16 feet per mile! More than 20 times what it actually is!
Next, he's comparing the height of the observation point using sea level (apples), with the height of a building relative to the ground (oranges).
It's spelled Rogers CentRE.

And flat-earthers wonder why people laugh at them.

>>9956451
>curvature is 516 feet
The explanation is that retarded people like you can't do math properly.

>>9956490
The LIGO lasers are detecting the distance they are travelling to the mirror, which would be possible if gravity waves were only affecting space, but because space AND time are being affected, the laser will take the same amount of time to travel to the mirror, meaning no change can be detected.

>>9956451
>expected curvature is ~500 foot drop
That's the thing. Ther IS a 500' drop, and its visible from the picture. The explanation is that you and the creator of that webm dont know what is meant by 500' drop; hint it doesnt mean you cant seen anything unless its 500 tall or higher. It really means that the distance between the target and the line tangent to the lake and intersecting your eyes is 500 feet. The webm is looking at that line that connects the tangent with the target at and angle because of the curvature of earth. Notice the bottoms of the buildings cut off too. This webm is EVIDENCE of a round earth. Nice job exposing yourself, psued.

>>9956499
>Well... how about this: the curvature of the earth is 7.98 inches per mile, giving an expected drop of about 20.5 feet, not whatever insane number this asshole is claiming. 516 feet of drop over 30.84 miles? That's a curvature of over 16 feet per mile! More than 20 times what it actually is!

You realise that you have to square the mile? We're talking about a sphere here...

>And flat-earthers wonder why people laugh at them.
Awkward...

>>9956504
>time is affected
>the laser will take the same amount of time to travel to the mirror
It doesn’t matter how time is affected. What matters is the effective length of the arm: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO#Operation..

>>9956499
>>9956510
Flat earthers are legit retarded, but that "7.98 inches per mile [squared]" thing is completely false. That's not how geometry works.

>>9956507
>hint it doesnt mean you cant seen anything unless its 500 tall or higher.
So when ships supposedly disappear over the horizon, how much "curvature" have they sailed over?

>Notice the bottoms of the buildings cut off too.
Oh, nothing to do with the dense atmosphere on the surface of the water + mirroring of the water line from evaporating water. Got it.

>>9956499
>>9956502
The "drop" is actually about ~500'. Look up how "drop" is defined and calculated. The trigonometry involved is fairly convoluted, flat earthers sure as fuck dont understand it.

>>9956515
What is it then genius?

>>9956517
the webm is actually accurate about the drop
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30.84&h0=6&unit=imperial

>>9956516
>So when ships supposedly disappear over the horizon, how much "curvature" have they sailed over
Enough so that the if you draw perpendicular line down from the tangent line to the target, and measure the angle of of that line with the normal line coming out of the target, the cosine of that angle times the height of distant object is greater that the thickness of the chunk earth that is cut off by the chord connecting the viewer and the object. I'd draw a picture, but it's not like would convince you.
>Oh, nothing to do with the dense atmosphere on the surface of the water + mirroring of the water line from evaporating water
No lol

>>9956524
That's my point.
>>9956518
~500'

>>9956514
What is the the thing travelling and being affected by the gravity wave? The laser beam. If the laser beam travels a shorter distance through the "fabric of space", it will also travel through a shorter distance of time, thereby negating any measurable change. If only the distance of space was shorter, and the distance of time remained the same, then the change would be measurable.

>>9956524
so the flat earther was right
fuck me.

>>9956451
Maybe the water level was low/Toronto is built higher than sea level
>fellow GTA leafbro

>>9956518
Btw the gaussian curvature of a sphere about the size of earth is ~2.46*10^-14 m^-2, which would be constant everywhere if earth was a sphere, but it's not really a sphere.

>>9956541
No. Read >>9956528
>>9956507

>>9956541
Atmospheric refraction

>>9956547
>>9956524
I just have to look at this pic and know you're full of shit. Just drop it. didn't read your sci-fi.

>>9956551
Lmao literally shown evidence, resorts to name calling
>the absolute state of flat earthers

>>9955199
>GR is a non-explanation
>just a mathematical model
maybe you should try your hand in the humanities

>>9956551
I'm not lol. That's the real explanation. I'll give it to you, I had to think for a sec why the stadium is visible, but that it's actually what's happening. You're basically admitting you cant argue with me at this point. Let me know when you learn geometry. ;^*

>>9956528
Let's say the mast of this boat in pic related is 16 feet high, how far would it have to sail to be completely obstructed by earth's curvature?

>No lol
So nothing above the surface of water could affect the visibility of objects behind it? Got it.

>>9956524
This ignores refraction, which is clearly occurring in the video since the air is shimmering and the view near the horizon is compressed (the Rivers Centre looks rectangular instead of a dome)

>>9956562
I dont think refraction is significant enough to care about in the webm.

>>9956537
Like I said, coherence of the laser beam or lack thereof depends on the effective length travelled, as shown in the diagram. Travel time has nothing to do with it.

>>9956543
Pic related says no, but at least you're trying to give an explanation unlike other globecucks who even try to deny there'd be a drop at all.

>>9956560
>waaa calculate trivial shit for me
If I did it wouldn't mean anything to you nigger faggot

>>9956560

>>9956562
>muh refraction

Pathetic.

>>9956571
>>9956575
>>9956560
>still cant argue with me
>can only move goalposts

>>9956567
Refraction can bend light over 100 feet over that kind of distance.

>>9956546
>but it's not really a sphere.
Yes, oblate spheroid, I know. Can you show me the empirical measurements that prove this oblateness?

>>9956560
7.9 miles

>>9956579
>there can't be any distortion, domes must be rectangles!
Pathetic.

>>9956586
Jej, show your working.

>>9956592
What work?
I'm just pulling numbers out my ass

>>9956570
How does time affect the experiment? Considering we're talking about spacetime.

>>9956579

It is a mirage, video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Yjk6_I3lc

>>9956588
>thinks the distortion is due to it being a refraction of light rather than just being standard atmospheric distortion of something not being refracted.

>>9956608
Yo, english please

Earth curvature directly imaged

>>9956486
>Your retard experiment doesn't work if both space and time are affected, that is a fact.
Your idiocy is the only proven fact here.

>>9956595
You're on your way to being a true globe scientist.

>>9956602
>mirage
Jej, the length you globalists go to. Inferior mirages are mirrored upside down as well, can you point out where that is happening?

>>9956621
:'-)
Thank you anon

>>9956611
When looking through thick, warm atmosphere, objects in the distance will become somewhat blurry and shaky, the objects don't need to be refracted for this to happen.

>>9955149
>>9955199


Thats great and all but what are the applications of gravity waves? Seems like they aren't very useful when they are only generated by stars and black holes. What a waste of money desu

>>9956613
Jej: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5_efcyCjBo

>>9956643
>pure science is a waste of money
why are you even on this board?

>>9956632
Hold on anon,
Are you telling me, there's something other than refraction that's causes the objects in the in the distance to become, "blurry and shaky?"

>>9956608
What is atmospheric distortion?

And why are the parts of the image higher up not distorted?

>lakes
what about evidence of globe earth over the ocean? like the sails of ships being seen first over the horizon
lakes can sit higher than sea level and other kinds of fuckery

>>9956628
Keep it up!

>>9956647
As crazy as it may sound, yes, atmosphere actually exists between you and objects in the distance. Takes a while to wrap your head around.

>>9956648
Light has to travel through the atmosphere, the atmosphere will make light do weird movements as it passes through.

>And why are the parts of the image higher up not distorted?
Because the higher you go, the less dense the atmosphere is, therefore less light distortion.

>>9956645

>blurry video vs. detailed photo

>>9956658
So your telling me the light is being, dare I say, refracted from the atmosphere?

>>9956660
>detailed photo
Jej, no mirage visible to you?

>>9956658
>Light has to travel through the atmosphere, the atmosphere will make light do weird movements as it passes through.
How?

>>9956666
You can use that word if you wish, but the important distinction is that the atmosphere bends it in random directions, rather than placing it perfectly on the horizon line 500+ feet. That would be the belief of a madman.

>>9956677
Oh I absolutely I agree with you, my point was more towards
>>9956632

>>9956677
You just said that the higher you go the less refraction there is, so it's not random.

>>9956676
The atmosphere is moving around randomly, and the particles of water mixed in it will bend the light passing through it in random directions. Just watch someone go for a swim and they will be affected by it too, they weren't refracted 500+ feet beforehand.

>>9956680
>less random

>>9956676
If NASA hadn't sucked out all the financing from real scientists into their globe balooza, then maybe we'd know.

>>9956671

curvature clearly visible in the photo

many more examples in this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

flat earthers now officially BTFO

>>9956679
By refracted beforehand, I mean the object doesn't need to be "lifted" up from behind curvature and placed on the horizon before showing this shaky effect. The object can actually just be there.

>>9956597
The passing gravitational wave changes the effective length of the arm and thus the phase alignment of the beams, causing decoherence. Do you understand why the beams getting out of phase causes destructive interference?

>>9956689
Wat.
I would ask you to use simpler words to explain what you mean, but the words you used are pretty simple; they just don't make sense in the order you put them in.

>>9956504
>the laser will take the same amount of time to travel to the mirror, meaning no change can be detected
>Thinking LIGO works by measuring laser travel time.
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you can’t get the basic details of an experiment right?

>>9956684
The atmosphere isn't layered randomly though, it gets less dense the higher up you go. Light traveling from a dense layer to a less dense layer will bend towards the more dense layer. This is refraction.

>>9956688
Jej, that's cute. You know what would really BTFO "flat earthers"? A laser test confirming this so called curvature. I wonder why that hasn't been done, instead you post photos of pylons being distorted by mirages and other atmospheric distortions.

Here's a laser test providing evidence of flatness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOAQHT_GWp0&feature=youtu.be

>>9956686
If the distortions are random, why do they make a dome look like a rectangle? They would just make a blurry dome if they were random.

>>9956691
Is length not inherently linked to time?

>>9956698
Don't worry about. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the skyline is actually physically there, there is no curvature.

>>9956716
Where is the top of the dome?

>>9956702
It's measuring distance isn't it? Time doesn't come into that?

>>9956384
>Thinking Maxwell equations work with an arbitrary metric

The metric is by definition arbitrary, so wut?

>>9956720
>It's measuring distance isn't it? Time doesn't come into that?
They are measuring distance, not velocity...

>>9956708

that video proves nothing, laser light is affected by the atmosphere just like any other light, also laser light diverges over many kilometers, too

direct photo of the curvature is the most reliable evidence we can get with consumer hardware, and certainly much more reliable than fucking around with lasers or flashlights

>>9956719
Above the horizon line.

>>9956723
>>Thinking Maxwell equations work with an arbitrary metric
>The metric is by definition arbitrary, so wut?
Not understanding basic english...

>>9956725
distance != spacetime?

>>9956723
sorry, I was thinking gauge, not metric. rip. + - - - metric ftw.

>>9956729
Another direct photo showing the curvature

>>9956730
How do you know if the atmosphere retracts light randomly?

>>9956734
>distance != spacetime?
They are meassuring [math] dx^2 [/math] not [math]-dt^2+dx^2[/math].

>>9956729
Jej, lasers remaining level over many miles are not proof of flatness because all light is affected by atmosphere, but ships going off into the distance are proof of curvature even though they will be affected by atmosphere.

>direct photo of the curvature is the most reliable evidence we can get with consumer hardware, and certainly much more reliable than fucking around with lasers or flashlights
Photographs are more reliable scientific evidence than experimental evidence using lasers...

You have to be trolling.

https://youtu.be/3Qd-EXQIAEI

>>9956740

>>9956743
Based on the random shaky behaviour of the objects behind the atmosphere. Do you claim otherwise?

>>9956749
It's easy to see when there is no refraction, since you will get clear details even close to the horizon. There are plenty of examples of boats and other objects curving under the horizon with clear details. There are no examples of things being above the horizon that shouldn't with clear details. Unfortunately for you, the argument doesn't go both ways.

>>9956749

I am not trolling, you just dont understand science. Laser is just a point light, while a photo is a collection of many such points. You will not be able to tell whether laser light being visible is just due to being affected by atmosphere or not. With a photo you can see it much more clearly (but still it may be hard to tell a mirage from reality sometimes).

There is nothing "more scientific" about lasers, unless you are a pseud who gets all wet just hearing the word "laser".

>>9956757
You didn't my question. If light is refracted randomly, then how do you know what you're seeing is above the horizon? It could be refracted randomly from below it.

Also, you didn't answer my question of how random refractions turn a dome into a rectangle.

>>9956758
>There are plenty of examples of boats and other objects curving under the horizon with clear details.
Can you confirm these photos weren't taken very low to the ground, waiting for a wave to cover the boat? Because that will give you the same effect. And you consider photos to be reliable scientific evidence? What is wrong with you?

>>9956762
Because he is too dumb to explain his own stupidities.

>>9956763
>Can you confirm these photos weren't taken very low to the ground, waiting for a wave to cover the boat?
"Every video of a boat disappearing behind the horizon is due to a wave covering it"

>>9956763
>Can you confirm these photos weren't taken very low to the ground, waiting for a wave to cover the boat?
There aren't just photos, there are videos too. This thread also has several examples of objects that can't be covered by waves. You lose.

>>9956759
>I am not trolling, you just dont understand science. Laser is just a point light, while a photo is a collection of many such points.
Jej, why are your photos always taken over water, where miraging effects will occur? Do yo consider that scientifically reliable? Is pic related a mirage or not?

>You will not be able to tell whether laser light being visible is just due to being affected by atmosphere or not
What if it happens repeatedly? What if you use a flashlight, moving it up and down, and it is still visible? You are anti-science.

>>9956762
The "refraction" I'm talking about is caused by real physical objects being affected by the movement of the atmosphere in front of it and you. It is only possible on a flat plane.

>>9956766
>"Every video of a boat disappearing behind the horizon is due to a wave covering it"
Only ones that are clear, like you say, and are obstructed by a lot of water. Ships disappear bottom up due to the atmosphere being thick on the surface of the water, creating a mirror line that the ship disappears into, getting smaller and smaller due to perspective. Webm related.

>>9956781
>The "refraction" I'm talking about is caused by real physical objects being affected by the movement of the atmosphere in front of it and you. It is only possible on a flat plane.
You said it bends light, how would it only bend light between the viewer and the object on a flat plane, and not allow the light to be bent beyond that? Is it intelligent?

>>9956772
>there are videos too
Show them.

>>9956786
For that to be true every single video of a boat disappearing below the horizon would have to show a mirage. But they don't. Your video doesn't have clear details, it has simmering and the mirage is obvious. The only thing you can do is post videos of mirages, and not a clear detailed picture of a flat earth perspective, proving my point.

>>9956789
Skip to 7 seconds, this is the effect I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um_2lPBCGA0

>>9956781
"Refraction is only possible on a flat plane"... And I thought I have heard stupid things...

>>9956786
An eternal wave that covers the ship forever... And disappears "because it's getting smaller" despite the upper part being clearly visible while the lower part isn't indicating that the wave is getting bigger and bigger forever... Appart from dumb you are blind.

>>9956796
>But they don't.
Show me one.

>>9956793
https://youtu.be/WOZd6t9uzhY

>>9956798
Show me an experiment that shows refraction that also uses water that is curved on the surface, not flat.

>>9956797
How does that affect cause a dome top look like a rectangle?

>>9956803
Look at all the pictures in this thread.

>>9955555
Attraction at a distance is not an explanation of the physical mechanics involved with Gravity, attraction at a distance is our observed effect.
What is the physical mechanics of mass attracting mass?

>>9956802
Jej, ignoring the obvious miraging effect visible underneath the boat, why is the horizon line changing height from each cut? Very strangely edited video, I'm sure it's not hiding anything...

>>9956806
Show what you mean.

>>9956810
Nice circular reasoning. I don't believe the oceans are curved on their surface, there is no proof of this. No, photos are not proof of this either.

>>9956828
Prove to me that surface of the water is flat

>>9956835
Apart from the fact bodies of water, from a puddle, to a bath, to a lake etc are flat on the surface, they do not take the shape of the bottom of the container on its surface.

In a practical sense, periscopes on a submarine would be pretty useless with curved water, but make much more sense on flat water.

Water is also used in construction because it is flat and level.

>>9956850
Prove this flatness isnt only on a local level

>>9956856
If water is curving around a globe, then the curvature is on a local level, in fact on every level, and should be easily measurable in only a few miles

The picture of that bridge over water above should be accounting for over 7,000 feet of curvature, of course no curvature was taken into account when building it.

37 experiments supporting flat earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF2Pc0HoRHk

Where are yours globules?

>>9956759
just if anyone is actually doing the math, laser beams are technically not points, but have roughly Gaussian profiles

Can any flat earthan explain me how does sun works?
To this day no one was ever able to present me model of sun that includes proper timezones and sun going from horizon to horizon at steady rate during the day.

>>9956969
What we know:
The sun is small
The sun is local
The sun acts like a spotlight
The sun circles around the earth like pic related, depending on the season, the larger the circle, the faster it circles. This is what creates the analemma.
The moon also has an analemma (lunar analemma)
What I think:
The sun's light interacts with the moon/moonlight, changing its shape.

>>9956992
The sun disappears when it reaches the horizon, not while it is above the horizon as it would if it acted like a spotlight.

>The sun's light interacts with the moon/moonlight, changing its shape.
Huh? Is there such a phenomenon anywhere?

As to the small/local thing, that wouldn't give you anything like the shadow lengths and angles to the sun that we see.

>>9956992
>The sun acts like a spotlight
It wouldn't go from horizon to horizon nor it would move at steady rate.

>>9956867
>If water is curving around a globe, then the curvature is on a local level, in fact on every level
No. The height of the ocean surface above the center of the Earth varies because of different densities of rock underneath causing variation in force of gravity.

>>9956828
>circular reasoning
flat reasoning

>>9957021
>The sun disappears when it reaches the horizon, not while it is above the horizon as it would if it acted like a spotlight.
Depends where you're viewing it from - if from ground level, your horizon isn't very far and the sun's light will be passing through thick atmosphere, increasing its size as it circles away. If viewing from a plane through much less dense atmosphere, like webm related, its movement becomes much clearer.

>As to the small/local thing, that wouldn't give you anything like the shadow lengths and angles to the sun that we see.
Why not? A 93 million miles away sun does?

>>9956850
>Apart from the fact bodies of water, from a puddle, to a bath, to a lake etc are flat on the surface, they do not take the shape of the bottom of the container on its surface.
No one is saying the ocean surface follows the shape of the sea floor. Gravity pulls everything towards the center of the Earth, so any differential part of the ocean surface tends to be perpendicular to a line drawn to the center of the Earth.
>In a practical sense, periscopes on a submarine would be pretty useless with curved water,
This makes no sense at all. The periscope just needs to be raised far enough above the surface so that you can see what you are trying to see. And to see a few miles, that isn't very far. From 6 feet up the horizon is 3 miles, so local variation (waves) are more of a factor.

>>9957029
Why not?

>>9957051
>Why not? A 93 million miles away sun does
if you literally can't do middle school geometry then how do you expect to be taken seriously

>>9956850
>Water is also used in construction because it is flat and level.
WTF do you mean by this? Are you talking about leveling devices with bubbles in them?

>>9957057
i didn't mean this in an insulting way, but just a practical, come on, kind of way

>>9957057
I bet he could, he is just refusing to look at it.

>>9957037
Prove it.

>>9957051
>Why not? A 93 million miles away sun does?
Please actually to the basic trig. There is no way a light source in any position over a flat disc would cause the shadows we see, let alone the sun being invisible to half the Earth's surface at all times.

A 93 million mile away sun in combination with the Earth being spherical does explain what we see, yes.

There are other proofs that the sun is millions of miles away. Why not look them up? It'd be fun.

>>9957053
>center of the Earth
How big is this? Where is you proof of this existing?

>This makes no sense at all. The periscope just needs to be raised far enough above the surface so that you can see what you are trying to see. And to see a few miles, that isn't very far. From 6 feet up the horizon is 3 miles, so local variation (waves) are more of a factor.

Periscopes look straight ahead, they don't angle themselves to look down any curvature.

>>9957057
Explain why a local sun can't produce the same shadows dipshit.

>>9957054
As the sun keeps moving along the disk at the same speed, it would traverse less and less angle. The further the sun is, the less noticeable its movement is. The only model that preserves angular speed of the sun and provides proper timezones is either point light sun or earth moving around the other at large distance.

>>9957058
>what is a datum level

>>9957067
>There is no way a light source in any position over a flat disc would cause the shadows we see
Prove it.

>let alone the sun being invisible to half the Earth's surface at all times.
It's called the atmosphere, it blocks the light.

>>9957075
>As the sun keeps moving along the disk at the same speed
Who claimed this?

>>9957065
I was DISproving your statement. You said "If water is curving around a globe, then the curvature is on a local level, in fact on every level." I pointed out one mechanism that causes local variation counter to a perfectly curved surface, namely local variation in gravity. The slightest conception of how things are (specifically that rocks are different densities and thus exert different gravitational pulls) was enough to disprove your statement.

>>9957079
>>There is no way a light source in any position over a flat disc would cause the shadows we see
>Prove it.
>>let alone the sun being invisible to half the Earth's surface at all times.
>It's called the atmosphere, it blocks the light.
The atmosphere is not, repeat not, opaque.
So it generally doesn't block light.
The time zone/half the surface in night at all times thing obviously comes from something opaque blocking the light, maybe, I dunno, the Earth.

>>9957082
Show me the variations of the sea's curvature.

>>9957069
>>center of the Earth
>How big is this? Where is you proof of this existing?

How big is the center of the Earth? It's the mathematical center of an object, it doesn't have a size. The center of a spherical object is where the net gravitational pull from the object pulls to because it is the average position of the mass of that spherical object. Because it is the center. There must be a center, because geometry. Things have middles, have you not noticed this?

>Periscopes look straight ahead, they don't angle themselves to look down any curvature.

No one is saying they look down the curvature. They look across, and since they are above the surface level, they can see at a downward angle as far as their height allows. Do you not have a field of vision? Have you not noticed that you can look horizontally and still see things to an angles both below and above your line of sight?

>hurrr explain to me something I don't want to believe in!!1

gonna go piss against the wind instead, might as well be more productive

>>9957091
The sun is small and local, so yes, the atmosphere can block it. Your globe model has the atmosphere changing the colour and shape of the sun as it sets/rises.

>>9957099
There are maps/databases that show this variation. Look them up; I don't have time to take you on a global expedition to map them ourselves right now.

>>9957103
The sun is small and local, so yes, the atmosphere can block it.
Light is blocked a certain amount by a given thickness of air. You can test how much for a certain thickness, then extrapolate for longer ones. That doesn't change if you change the distance to the sun.

>>9957109
>The sun is small and local, so yes, the atmosphere can block it.
Meant to quote you there.

>>9957100
>How big is the center of the Earth? It's the mathematical center of an object, it doesn't have a size. The center of a spherical object is where the net gravitational pull from the object pulls to because it is the average position of the mass of that spherical object. Because it is the center. There must be a center, because geometry. Things have middles, have you not noticed this?
Where is the scientific evidence of this "center"? At the moment you think it's made of molten iron and nickel that creates the magnetic field, yet there is zero evidence of molten iron and nickel creating a magnetic field, in fact these metals lose their magnetic properties when heated. Awkward...

>No one is saying they look down the curvature. They look across, and since they are above the surface level, they can see at a downward angle as far as their height allows. Do you not have a field of vision? Have you not noticed that you can look horizontally and still see things to an angles both below and above your line of sight?
There is no curvature. What you are describing is perspective, that is the imaginary "curvature" globalists are mistaking for real curvature.

>>9957099
Also, you should be able to figure out that there must be ocean surface variation. Rocks have different densities, mass causes gravitational attraction, local gravity variation pulls the water differently in different places.

>>9957104
Nice dodge.

>>9957109
>thinks any size and distance of the sun can penetrate the earth's atmosphere without being blocked

>>9957081
The day lasts the same amount of time on every place on same latitude. Therefore it has to move at constant speed.

>>9957117
>Rocks have different densities
So these denser rocks are being pulled closer to the "center", right?

>>9957120
>Nice dodge.
not him, but no not everyone has time to help you. justify that however you want lel

>>9957122
>So these denser rocks are being pulled closer to the "center", right?
is this a science thread or a stoner thread?

>>9957121
What is your definition of "day"?

>>9957124
Re-dodging.

>>9957114
Geometry proves that everything has a center.

Now, it's not that the center of the Earth is a special, distinct thing that causes grvitational pull while the rest of the Earth, or the rest of all matter actually, does not. Every gram of the Earth causes gravitational pull: when you average out all the pulls, you can represent them as one pull from the center.
It doesn't matter what the exact composition of the matter at the center is: all that matters is how much matter in total comprises the Earth. Also, the gravitational pull of matter has nothing to do with whether it is magnetic or not.

As to the periscope, what I described is just having a direct line of sight to something.

>>9957126
Answer the question pussy.

>>9957120
>>thinks any size and distance of the sun can penetrate the earth's atmosphere without being blocked
How much the atmosphere blocks light does not depend on how far the light travels before it encounters air. How could it? That's like saying how far down her throat your mother can take a cock depends on how far she had to walk to get to her customer.

>>9957136
If earth is a globe, but imperfect, then so is its "center" imperfect. Geometry doesn't deal with imperfections, so geometry doesn't prove shit in actual physical reality (the domain of science).

>>9957134
lol i was expecting you to claim i was the other guy just because it's literally the easiest stupidest response you could make. that's the route you take man.

>>9957139
Brainlet thinks a helicopter shining a spotlight travels forever visibly in all directions and doesn't get blocked by air.

>>9957137
gravity only had much of an influence when the Earth formed. at this point, the matter making up the Earth doesn't shift around a lot as far as I know

>>9957142
Triple dodge.

>>9957137
Oh, you thought the stoner comment was from me.
Take a few objects of different mass. Set them on the ground. Do they all fall to depths within the Earth according to their densities? Of course not.

You knew that. You have repeatedly denied things anyone who has vision and can touch things knows. I enjoy trying to explain basic shit, but this is too much even for me. Count it as victory if you like, I gotta shower and go out now.

>>9957144
My brother, air does not permeate the universe.
And the cock-and-throat analogy still stands.

>>9957145
Apart from the molten core which is supposed to be the densest.

>>9957146
troll (4/10) or not worth being disappointed that not troll

>>9957152
yes but I wouldn't call those rocks

>>9957141
Yes, that's why no one seeking a science career studies geometry or uses it in his/her work.

>>9957149
Put helium balloon on the ground, what happens?

>>9957150
What part of the sun being local don't you understand?

>>9957136
>Geometry proves that everything has a center.
i'd like to see that proof desu

>>9957154
Quad dodge.

>>9957159
omg, I don't have time to explain how buoyancy results from density and gravity.
Since I know flattards think buoyancy explains what gravity actually explains, I leave you with this: you hold a helium ballon that is less dense than the surrounding air. You release it. It goes up. Without gravity, why does it go up instead of standing still or moving in another direction?

>>9957166
fine 6/10

>>9957159
the molten core is not exactly "rocks"
>ok, let's move to air molecules themselves

>>9957167
>Without gravity, why does it go up instead of standing still or moving in another direction?
Because up is the quickest direction/direction of least resistance to equilibration.

>>9957171
Quint dodge.

>>9957172
>Molten metal is denser than solid metal

>>9957183
but flows
(viscosity =/= density)
you're not really arguing the point anymore

>>9957181
8/10

>>9957180
why do bowling balls go down then but balloons go up?

>>9955082
>modern theoretical physics is a cult built around

>>9956992
Explain then why the stars seen during the night from South Africa, Argentina, and Australia are exactly the same. You can't with a flat earth.

>>9956451
So can someone explain this or not?

>>9957180
>Because up is the quickest direction/direction of least resistance to equilibration.
Gobledy-gook. What is it "resisting"? WTF is "equilibriation"? Do you mean "reaching equilibrium"?

Answer the question: why does the heavier than air thing go "down" while the lighter than air thing go "up"? It's because down is in the direction of the pull of gravity while up is in the opposite direction, isn't it?

>>9956274
>I have no argumentatively-sound response so I'm going to spout ad-hominems until they agree with me

>>9957673
By the numbers listed on the webm:
the base of the Rogers Center is 267 feet above sea level, and the RC is 282 feet tall. 267 ft + 282 ft is 559 ft.
According to the numbers in the webm and standard Earth curvature formulas, much of the Rogers Center should be visible on the round Earth, as it is in the webm.

You may as well post a video from space showing a nice, spherical Earth.

>>9957746
Don't be confused by the lake surface being 243 ft above sea level. 6 ft above the shore would be at least 249 feet above sea level. So yeah, some of the building should be visible, and it is.

>>9957673
lrn2read

>>9956432
I want to calculate the gravitational field of her curvature if you know what I mean

>>9957760
>every single response is a different theory
>they're all literal sci-fi
yep, I know how to read.

>>9956850
Does anyone still use periscopes though...

>>9957077
Jesus Christ, an established value of sea level is not the same thing as whether or not a certain line is level. One is distance from the center of the Earth, the other is a line being perpendicular to a line to the center of the Earth.

>>9957133
time from sunrise to sunset

>>9955199
LOL

>>9957779
So explain the seasons then

>>9958023
Seasons happens because Earth's axis is not perpendicular to Earth's orbit.

>>9958025
I know the real answer I'm asking a flat earther to explain how the seasons work

>>9958027
I (>>9957779, >>9957121) am not a flat earther.

>>9958032
Well, shit this anonymous thing is really hard to keep track of who is who, ignore me I'll be sitting in the corner of shame.

>>9955082
In a seminar "quantum computing and quantum information", where in almost every single paper presented the author was proud to prove "hidden variables theory is false" and was extremely proud and had to mention that, 100 years after Einstein, he "proved that Einstein was wrong". Don´t think he was a crank, he was a genius!