/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9654695]

Is this the closest representation of the Earth's true shape?

(flat-earthers, pls gtfo)

[Anonymous No.9654701]

>>9654695
Mountains in Africa are somehow "lower" than the North Sea

No, it isn't

[Anonymous No.9654714]

If it is true it’s an extremely exaggerated version of earth

[Anonymous No.9654720]

It's an infinite plane, sick of your shitty globe cult.

[Anonymous No.9654721]

>>9654695
its an exaggerated representation.

[Anonymous No.9654734]

depends on the application desu. for most uses, the wgs84 reference ellipsoid is fine. if you need terrain representation, wgs84 and DTED level 1 is fine typically fine too.

for high fidelity gravity stuff, you should probably use EGM96

[Anonymous No.9654738]

>>9654695
The earth most closely resembles a common industrial ball bearing. Being a close approximation of a sphere but only within a 0.006 tolerance, slightly more oblong or compressed on one axis, than spherical, ect.

The earth and ball bearings are formed in a very similar manner too (molten, gravity pulling it together, than it cools, ect)

[Anonymous No.9654754]

>>9654738
>The earth most closely resembles a common industrial ball bearing

Sure looks like it...

[Anonymous No.9654763]

I'm with Plato, I believe the Earth to be perfectly spherical.

IS there even a 'perfectly spherical Earth' conspiracy???

[Anonymous No.9654768]

>>9654754
On a sphere, when you move up, the horizon doesn't get more curved, it gets lower down because of conics. With a disk earth, going up would make the horizon appear curved.

[Anonymous No.9654777]

>>9654768

On a sphere, the horizon would get lower down as well as more curved the higher you went, the same would happen on a disk earth.

Neither of these things actually happen however, the horizon line always remains at eye level and it doesn't curve. This suggests an infinite plane.

[Anonymous No.9654837]

>>9654721
>>9654714
It's wildly exaggerated. Why do people say the earth is pear-shaped, when it clearly is not?

[Anonymous No.9654877]

>>9654777

>Neither of these happen
Pictures from Apollo missions suggest you are wrong

[Anonymous No.9654880]

>>9654754
It IS a bit larger.

>>9654738
>Gravity pulls it together
More likely surface tension in the ball bearings.

[Anonymous No.9654922]

>>9654877
>Pictures from Apollo missions

Cute.

>>9654880
>It IS a bit larger.

Pretty weird looking sphere if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.9654927]

>>9654695
This is not the real shape of the earth, it only shows ina very exaggerated way the gravity differences on different places of the planet.

[Anonymous No.9654941]

>>9654922
>It IS a bit larger.
Contemplate that for a bit.

[Anonymous No.9654990]

>>9654941

The gif is from 28 miles up, you should be able to see a lot of curvature.

[Anonymous No.9655001]

>>9654990
>28 miles up is enough to see curvature on a ~25,000 mile circumference sphere
28 miles up is ~0.1% the circumference of the Earth. You are never going to notice it, certainly not with the naked eye.

[Anonymous No.9655042]

>>9654695
You can see a fucking picture of the Earth on Google. Why do you think some artist is going to do better job at showing you the Earth's true shape than actual fucking pictures of the thing?

[Anonymous No.9655051]

>>9655001

The radius is 3958 miles. At 18 miles up you can see 844 miles into the distance. You should be able to see 20% of the curvature.

[Anonymous No.9655075]

>>9655051
>The radius is 3958 miles. At 18 miles up you can see 844 miles into the distance. You should be able to see 20% of the curvature.
This is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9655080]

>>9655075

Why brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9655099]

>>9655080
Because it makes zero sense.

[Anonymous No.9655124]

>>9655099

Which part brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9655138]

>>9655124
>At 18 miles up you can see 844 miles into the distance. You should be able to see 20% of the curvature.
This part.

[Anonymous No.9655168]

>>9655138

When you send a weather balloon up on the globe model, you will be at the centre of the sphere and the furthest you could look would be the radius which is 3958 miles in the distance.

At 35,000ft you can see 221 miles into the distance, so with some math we get the figure of 844 miles at 100,000ft, which is about 20% of the radius. Because a sphere will curve equally in all directions, you should see 20% of the horizon curve.

[Anonymous No.9655199]

>>9655168
>weather balloon meme
kys senpai

[Anonymous No.9655219]

>>9655199

Your mother is gay.

[Anonymous No.9655227]

>>9655168
>brainlet math
Doesn't surprise me.

>and the furthest you could look would be the radius which is 3958 miles in the distance.
If it was flat.
> so with some math we get the figure of 844 miles at 100,000ft
If it was flat.
>which is about 20% of the radius. Because a sphere will curve equally in all directions, you should see 20% of the horizon curve.
Absolutely brainlet. You're using radius when it's now in the realm of circumference.

[Anonymous No.9655230]

>>9655219
No u

[Anonymous No.9655296]

>>9655227

The radius is directly linked to circumference brainlet. We're talking about looking forward at eye level with the horizon.

[Anonymous No.9655317]

>>9655296
>We're talking about looking forward at eye level with the horizon.
And you won't see 844 miles because the Earth is curved.

>b-but you should see it curving to the sides as well!
No, that is a relation to the circumference at the horizon.

[Anonymous No.9655437]

>>9654738
this. MUH GEOID btfo. It is a 0,06% error margin

[Anonymous No.9655440]

it's only pear-shaped because of the weight of Antarctica

[Anonymous No.9655711]

>>9654695
If earth was shrunk down to the size of a billiard ball, it would be smoother than a billiard ball.

[Anonymous No.9655714]

>>9654695
no. at that resolution a sphere would be the closest representation of the earth's true shape

[Anonymous No.9655882]

>>9655711
I don’t believe this but I’d like to

[Anonymous No.9655911]

east sub saharan africa must be flooded then

[Anonymous No.9655940]

>>9654695
What exactly are the colors supposed to show? They seem to be completely random.

[Anonymous No.9655958]

>pear
Looks like an apple to me

[Anonymous No.9655963]

>>9655882
The mariana trench goes down to about 11km. A billiard ball is about D_b=61mm~6,1*10^-2m in diameter the earth is about D_e=1,27*10^7m in diameter. D_e/D_b~2*10^8 and the mariana trench would correspond to a groove on the ball of depth 1,1*10^4m/2/10^8~5*10^-5m or about 50µm.

[Anonymous No.9655973]

>>9655940
Difference in gravity, I believe.
The darker the blue the lower the gravity and the lower the "elevation" on the ball, the deeper the red the higher the gravity and the higher the "elevation" on the ball.

It might not be the gravity map though.

[Ayynonlmaous No.9656008]

>>9654701
it's not height it's a gravity map

[Anonymous No.9656012]

>>9655882
https://youtu.be/mxhxL1LzKww?t=13m

[Anonymous No.9656313]

>>9654990
>The gif is from 28 miles up
I'm sure some math whiz has done the calculations as to how high up you need to be to see pronounced curvature, so we can stop this back and forth argument nonsense.

But no, at 28 miles it's still going to be pretty subtle.

[Anonymous No.9656930]

This is extremly exageeRRRRRAAAATEEEEED

[Anonymous No.9657385]

>>9656008
So then the subtext on the pic is wrong. What a stupid shit mane

[Anonymous No.9657500]

>>9654777
>the horizon line always remains at eye level and it doesn't curve. This suggests an infinite plane.
Actually, it suggests you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, and are not willing to search for information nor do experiments yourself to make a sincere determination.
You're just another worthless flat-Earth troll waste of time.

[Anonymous No.9657516]

>>9654837
>Why do people say the earth is pear-shaped, when it clearly is not?
Because it isn't perfectly spherical. That's a mathematical construct that is not very likely to occur in nature. The allegorical reference to a pear means, it's slightly larger in some places, and if you completely exaggerated the geometry, it would be like a pear, with a larger hemisphere, not like an egg with a gradually changing curvature, not like a tomato with indented poles, yada yada. It was meant for stupid people, but retarded people and trolls ran with it and try to say it was meant literally.

[Anonymous No.9657524]

>>9655124
Dude - he's trolling you.

[Anonymous No.9657525]

>>9654695
>>9655940
It's a gravity map where the higher-redder areas represent a slightly higher gravitation pull than the lower-bluer areas. Gravity changes due to variations in density and mass of the crust.

It was probably made by GOCE (Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer

[Anonymous No.9657527]

>>9655711
>>9655882
>>9655963
>>9656313
I have a globe. They're easy to come by. This one's .305m in diameter (about a foot).

The Earth is 12,756,000m in diameter.

That's a scale of about 1:41,822,951.

So that means if I'm at the top of the 828 meter Burj Khalifa, that building would jut out of my globe .00002 m or 0.02 mm = a fiftieth of a millimeter, something like a flake of silt. The texture of the globe material would obstruct any view of curvature.

How about in an airplane at 12,000 m? I'd be .00029 m or .29 mm = one third of a millimeter above the globe - something like a grain of salt. *Maybe* I could see a bit of curve, but I doubt it.

The ISS orbits at about 395,000 m. That would put it about .00944 m or 9.44 mm above my globe, about the length of a coffee bean. Yes, you should be able to see curvature from there (protip - they do).

[Anonymous No.9657573]

>>9657516
It's a stupid analogy that doesn't make sense and only adds to the confusion. A billiard ball is not a perfect sphere either, but that doesn't mean it is pear shaped.

[Anonymous No.9657584]

>>9657500

Planes use an artificial horizon that use a gyroscope you brainlet. They never have to dip their nose down to account for curvature.

If you look out a plane window at 35,000ft, the horizon will be at your eye level, you never have to look down to see it like your weird CGI picture purports.

[Anonymous No.9657585]

>>9657573
I agree.
Nevertheless, the genie's out of the bottle.

[Anonymous No.9657587]

>>9657584
Willfully ignorant troll.

[Anonymous No.9657590]

>>9657584
You don't know shit.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/08/flat-earth-folloies-horizon-always.html

[Anonymous No.9657595]

>>9657584
>They never have to dip their nose down to account for curvature.

You don't know shit.

The implication of the plane continuing "straight" into space would be that the atmosphere continued on at a constant pressure. In the real world, the atmosphere gets thinner as you gain altitude. A plane in steady flight maintains an equilibrium between the angle of attack of the wing and thrust of the engines that keeps the plane within a level of atmosphere where its rarity is more or less the same, but uses occasional minor trim when local pressure and density varies slightly.

[Anonymous No.9657612]

>>9657527
>The ISS orbits at about 395,000 m. That would put it about .00944 m or 9.44 mm above my globe, about the length of a coffee bean. Yes, you should be able to see curvature from there (protip - they do).

Yeah, they're really up there... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LdbS6svqpo

[Anonymous No.9657615]

>>9657612
You're a complete and total idiot. KYS.

[Anonymous No.9657628]

>>9657587

ur mom is

>>9657590
Reality is the horizon remains at eye level, gif related, and it's far higher than a plane. Look out a plane window sometime.

>>9657595
Nonsense, take a spirit level on a plane and see if it changes. Practical experiments trump your theoretical fluff.

[Anonymous No.9657631]

>>9657615

You realise those labs aren't researching the shape of the earth brainlet?

I see you also have no comment on the ISS video because you can't argue against it.

[Anonymous No.9657633]

>>9657628

[Anonymous No.9657639]

>>9657612
>>9657527
Here's a comparison of the altitude of the ISS above Earth and the view they show on their feeds. It seems like you should see some curvature from that altitude, but not the extreme views that NASA shows.

[Anonymous No.9657646]

>>9657631
You like saying "brainlet," don't you? Pic related.

It really isn't possible to argue successfully with a flat-Earther for three reasons:
1) They are not interested in the truth (virtually all are juvenile-level trolling, but some are delusional or choose to accept an oddly literal interpretation of some select Bible passages).
2) They make stuff up as they go along, keeping the stuff that sticks.
3) Most importantly, they don't offer any proof that requires a flat Earth paradigm to explain. There is literally no theory to argue.

The whole movement nefariously places the onus on you to prove the round Earth. Their singular tactic is to disavow any science or proofs put forward. If you use information that is readily available (and they could have looked up), you're called a 'shill' and your argument is dismissed without reason. Through proliferate offerings of demonstrably flawed posits, they "win" by eroding your patience. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain the fallacies in the barrage of assaults on even elementary principles of geometry, math, science, and logic. Trolls will respond with insults and offer no further explanations relevant to the argument, with the conventional goal of inciting responses and collecting "(You)s" while chuckling in self satisfaction from their solitary confines.

Arguing is akin to painting over mud - you just end up with a dirty brush.

[Anonymous No.9657648]

>>9657639

Yep, you can see the distortion on the solar panel as well. Definitely fuckery taking place.

[Anonymous No.9657653]

>>9657639
It's not the exaggerated curvature shown in the image you selected.

[Anonymous No.9657655]

>>9657639
You can clearly see in that image how the Earth curves away more than the straight solar panel, which only appear curved because of the wide camera lens.

[Anonymous No.9657659]

>>9657646

Still dodging the ISS video.

Science works under the principle of proving itself wrong, not the other way around. All globalists refuse to accept the "science" (more like metaphysics) behind the globe model could be wrong, so you will never research the flat model and instead appeal to authority/majority instead of critically thinking for yourself and accepting you could be wrong. All flat earthers once believed the globe model for the same reasons you do.

[Anonymous No.9657663]

>>9657655
Additionally, the Earth is closer to the center of the image, where there would be less distortion. So in a sense it is 'flattened' out, but still shows more curvature than the panel.

[Anonymous No.9657665]

>>9657648
>>9657653
>>9657655
It's clearly due to a wide angle lens. However, it doesn't mean that the actual view doesn't show some curvature. The problem with a standard rectilinear lens is that it has a limited field of view, so you only see a short segment of the horizon, and the curve effect (if any) might only be apparent when viewed with your own eyes (i.e. wide ~180 degree view).

[Anonymous No.9657679]

>>9657659
>Still dodging the ISS video.
You're right. Because it's another idiotic video made by a fool who thinks he sees something that isn't so. In microgravity, everything moves unless held down, and moves in a straight line unless acted upon by a force. The "belt" seemed to me just as easily that the hug knocked something down in back of the incoming astronaut, hit its limit, and recoiled 'upward'.

But am I going to examine every piece of fucked up video that you post because you're too stupid to think critically, or trolling because you're an asshole, or engage you because you're mentally ill? No. Life's too short to deal with fools like you.
>>9657646
>It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain the fallacies in the barrage of assaults on even elementary principles of geometry, math, science, and logic.

[Anonymous No.9657681]

>>9657665

What about this one?

[Anonymous No.9657687]

Is this the closest representation of the Earth's true shape?

(flat-earthers, pls gtfo)

[Anonymous No.9657689]

>>9657681
If you're asking if I think those are wide angle, I'd guess they were. If youre asking why they are different, it could just be 2 different cameras/lenses being used, or sometimes just the angle of the camera to the horizon can change the apparent curve quite a bit if its a very wide angle or fisheye lens.

[Anonymous No.9657691]

>>9657679
Does microgravity make belts fade in like that? If you can't see why people are questioning footage like this then maybe it is you who is trying to see something that isn't there.

>But am I going to examine every piece of fucked up video that you post because you're too stupid to think critically, or trolling because you're an asshole, or engage you because you're mentally ill? No. Life's too short to deal with fools like you.

Emotional ad hominem attack. If you're not willing to look at the evidence for both sides, then you're not in a position to argue a side.

[Anonymous No.9657695]

>>9657573
A billiard ball doesn't have defined hemispheres.
The pear shaped analogy is that the Earth is slightly fatter in the southern hemisphere, like a pear shaped woman.

[Anonymous No.9657699]

>>9657639
>>9657653
>>9657681
>>9657689
It is really necessary to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imnagery to be able to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion. When you see a round Earth and the curvature is convex, you know it has to be convex. When it's concave near the edge, it's exaggerated.

[Anonymous No.9657700]

>>9657633
How can you tell the camera isn't pointing slightly down?
You can't. Same with observing the horizon on the Earth. Use tools to back up this claim, don't just eyeball it.

[Anonymous No.9657701]

>>9657695
Okay, I was wrong. Are there any good visual representations of this earth shape? Surely that should be easy to diagram, I don't think I've seen one; the OP pic seems clearly not correct.

[Anonymous No.9657707]

>>9657691
>Emotional ad hominem attack. If you're not willing to look at the evidence for both sides
It's not evidence! It's a grainy, crappy version of footage that was selected precisely for its ambiguity. You're refusing to believe the video was on the ISS. That's idiotic! You instead believe some basement-dweller's fantasy, then demand it take equal time in a serious forum. It's not an ad hominem attack. You are being willfully ignorant!

[Anonymous No.9657709]

>>9657689

It's from the same live stream/camera. I can't see how a camera lens could make the terminator line look that crooked, the curve of a lens would make smoother than that.

[Anonymous No.9657733]

>>9657707
So if it's true that a forensic expert said the video was deliberately doctored, that's not evidence for you? You know better because?

[Anonymous No.9657737]

>>9657612
Being a video forensics expert myself, I went over that video and this is my conclusion.

For the first part, due to the low bitrate of the video and fairly low resolution it appears the belt was able to hide in the seam of the door as it was ascending, making it suddenly pop in as it cleared the seam and the encoder resolved it. It was probably rising due to interaction during the hug/greeting.
The points of "movement" above the door are just encoding artifacts that you find all over the video.

Similarly, during the second clip the warping of the door is just compression artifacts. No one could possibly ham together an edit that bad.

[Anonymous No.9657748]

>>9657733
He didn't show any evidence that a forensic expert said this though.

He showed two clips of the request and said he would provide more details of the forensic results in the comments, but there is nothing. No screenshot of an email response or anything.

It's literally just hearsay.

[Anonymous No.9657751]

>>9657733
So now you're saying the guy's a forensic expert? And he doesn't acknowledge MPG compression algorithm anomalies? Why isn't the original, hi-res footage shown? None of that video is original. Do I know better? Yes. If this idiot is not producing the original unedited (BTW... you do notice that this video was literally edited by your "expert," right?) footage, it's hard for me to acknowledge that he's not being sincere, and that makes it hard to believe he's a 'forensic' expert. He also uses an apostrophe to make "wire's" [sic] plural in his production video. That doesn't boost my confidence in hies education. I agree a typo doesn't make or break a paper, but in scientific processes, the author passes it around for review and correction. Another reason this guy's a pompous, lay idiot. He hasn't gotten serious review first. He had a metaphoric premature publishing.

[Anonymous No.9657757]

>>9657751
The video maker himself didn't claim to be the forensic expert, he claimed he sent it to two forensic experts to look at and at least one claimed it was doctored.

But he presented zero evidence of that claim.

[Anonymous No.9657761]

>>9654922
Please tell me, from what sources are photographs considered valid evidence?

[Anonymous No.9657765]

>>9657737
>Being a video forensics expert myself

What an unlikely coincidence!

>the belt was able to hide in the seam of the door as it was ascending, making it suddenly pop in as it cleared the seam and the encoder resolved it.

So encoders make things fade in like that? Seems very far-fetched.

>The points of "movement" above the door are just encoding artifacts that you find all over the video.

Yeah, where the wire would be being edited out, I don't see this anywhere else.

>Similarly, during the second clip the warping of the door is just compression artifacts.

Never seen compression artifacts make a still background move like that, just a coincidence it moves when the astronaut does, right?

>No one could possibly ham together an edit that bad.

You don't know NASA then.

[Anonymous No.9657788]

>>9657748
True, but it said he spoke with them on the phone, perhaps they didn't want to be in the video (they were blocked out in the quote).

>>9657751
The video was taken from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8akgPBjkL-Y

Doesn't look like a flat earther uploaded that.

Also, the person who made the video isn't the forensic expert, he went to a company for that.

[Anonymous No.9657803]

>>9657788
>True, but it said he spoke with them on the phone, perhaps they didn't want to be in the video (they were blocked out in the quote).
He could have easily asked for the quote in writing or email and blocked out the address.
The quote itself was obviously delivered electronically so why would you resort to hearsay for the opinion of a forensic expert.

>>9657765
As you aren't an expert on this I can tell you are incredulous, but that's just a lack of your understanding.

[Anonymous No.9657813]

>>9657761
Photographs can never really be considered scientific evidence by themselves. If there are millions of photos of the same thing taken by the public, then it would be very difficult to claim every one of those photos has been deliberately manipulated to make it something it's not.

[Anonymous No.9657823]

>>9657788
You see when he gets hugged the end of the belt of his fannypack gets caught on the guy's arm as he pulls away which is giving the belt the force it needs to continue moving, then like I explained it is hidden in the seam of the door until it separates enough that the encoder resolves it.

Gotta remember this video is from 2008, it's in 480p and probably shot in the equivalent of a webcam. Encoding artifacts are everywhere. It's just a mess of them.

[Anonymous No.9657880]

>>9657527
Nicely explained, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9657891]

>>9657701
>good visual representations.

Not really, the difference between the Earth's shape and a perfect sphere is not something you'd notice with the naked eye.

[Anonymous No.9657896]

>>9657707
You are being trolled, you know that don't you?

[Anonymous No.9657901]

>>9657709
Can you repost the image with an arrow or something pointing to where you think the terminator looks crooked? I'm not seeing it. Maybe it's me.

[Anonymous No.9657916]

>>9657901
Not Anon, but I'm betting the farm he means where the limb crosses into the terminator. Lack of vocabulary, unaware of shadow play on a sphere.

[Anonymous No.9657920]

>>9657896

I'm aware
>>9657646
>1) They are not interested in the truth (virtually all are juvenile-level trolling,

[Anonymous No.9657933]

>>9657803
>He could have easily asked for the quote in writing or email and blocked out the address.

True, perhaps they asked him not to so they wouldn't get in trouble for exposing a government agency, or they don't want other people getting it for free. Guess the only way to find out would be to send the video to a forensics company ourselves.

>>9657823
As far as I know, encoders don't fade in objects like that, can you provide any evidence that they do?

>>9657901

[Anonymous No.9657945]

>>9656008
Different metals have different densities in the core of the earth. If anything, the image just shows a minor distribution of heavy metals?

[Anonymous No.9657966]

>>9657933
A big chunk of earth is in shadow due to the angle of the sun's light. That's why it looks weird

[Anonymous No.9657970]

>>9657788
Thanks for the link.

>Doesn't look like a flat earther uploaded that.
Agreed. But then, why would we expect it would be?

>he went to a company for that.
So he says.

[Anonymous No.9657996]

>>9657970
Given that evidence, I'd sue the 'forensic' company for my money back, plus damages for public humiliation.

[Anonymous No.9657997]

>>9654695
>shaped like a pear
Columbus was right all along!

[Anonymous No.9658002]

>>9657933
>send the video to a forensics company ourselves.
Don't have to. See:
>>9657970

[Anonymous No.9658011]

>>9657966
Are you convinced that's true?

>>9657970
>Agreed. But then, why would we expect it would be?
Either you or someone else said the original footage could have been manipulated by the flat earth believer.

>So he says.

There is evidence he got a quotation.

[Anonymous No.9658022]

>>9658011
>Are you convinced that's true?
It seems pretty clear to me. It doesn't look like lens aberration, it looks like there is a shadow gradient there. This is the terminator line for the sun's light, and the area at the shadow line is experiencing sunset on earth. This is reinforced by the sun being somewhere on the right hand side of the earth, as seen by the bright reflection in the clouds.

[Anonymous No.9658025]

>>9657970
>>9658002

No one's denying the belt went up, it's that it fades back in unevenly as it passes through the area that looks to be manipulated to hide something else (wires).

[Anonymous No.9658044]

>>9658022
It looks physically impossible to me. There's no where I can place the sun that would light a spherical earth like that.

[Anonymous No.9658058]

>>9657933
>As far as I know, encoders don't fade in objects like that, can you provide any evidence that they do?
I dunno what I can tell you. There is a reason why these kinds of artifacts come up fairly frequently in anti-NASA videos. It's also the reason why there's heavy artifacting around things that are moving.
It's only really when something that is moving disappears (or appears) from one frame to the next that you really get the fade in effect, and it's largely driven by the low bitrate and the motion compensation.

[Anonymous No.9658082]

>>9658044
Well, you can't see the full sphere of the Earth, so that's a pretty shitty statement to make.
I made a gigantic circle to try and match the curve here. The terminator has more of curve to it than your red line portrays and you have to remember that the closer you are to a sphere the less of the full hemisphere you can see, so that is screwing you up as well.

[Anonymous No.9658094]

>>9658025
You are so full of shit.

[Anonymous No.9658106]

>>9654695
no because that's a non-differentiable shape.

[Anonymous No.9658107]

>flat earthers on a science and math dedicaded tread
Tho much irony

[Anonymous No.9658110]

>>9654754
you can literally see the horizon being pulled up to the right of the center of the camera as the camera's panning. like, a convex lens.

[Anonymous No.9658112]

>>9657633
even the gif looks curved you mongrel

[Anonymous No.9658117]

>>9658058
Have you got video evidence of this occurring elsewhere?

>>9658082
Would you agree that sunlight would be hitting i pic related?

[Anonymous No.9658127]

>>9658117

[Anonymous No.9658151]

>>9658117
I have no videos on hand but if you look though some of the other "NASA exposed" videos you'll see more examples of it with various different claims as to what is happening.

>>9658127
The biggest problem is knowing where we are looking. Is the bright blown out area the North Pole or the South Pole, or is it the Sun's direct reflection off the surface (like when you look at a body of water when the Sun is above and in front of you there is an area of the water that is highly reflective).
What is the orientation?

I can think of a few possible locations for the Sun but it depends on the orientation of the camera/view, the direction (whether that's a sunrise or sunset terminator), where over the planet it is, and perhaps what the date is even.

[Anonymous No.9658161]

>>9658151
>I have no videos on hand but if you look though some of the other "NASA exposed" videos you'll see more examples of it with various different claims as to what is happening.

So the only place these weird things are happening is in NASA videos? Isn't that evidence they are messing with things?

[Anonymous No.9658168]

>>9658151
>Is the bright blown out area the North Pole or the South Pole, or is it the Sun's direct reflection off the surface
It doesn't matter where it is, but it is clearly the sun's reflection being overexposed since the camera is exposing for the darker areas to the left. It's not clear where the sun is because the view is too constrained.

[Anonymous No.9658202]

>>9658161
They're about the only old videos people are going through with a fine tooth comb to find these things.
I don't have videos I recorded 10 years ago lying around anymore. I don't have an archive of low resolution, low bitrate MPEG-2 videos I can trawl through.

People are finding them in the NASA vids because they're looking in the NASA vids. I don't really expect them to hunt through videos of a similar age to the same things but I also don't expect them to be familiar with video encoding.

[Anonymous No.9658209]

>>9658168
>but it is clearly the sun's reflection being overexposed since the camera is exposing for the darker areas to the left
Yeah, but that can be caused by different things, like I mentioned.
Large white areas reflect more light, but the direct reflection of the Sun would also be very bright. Without knowing where we are looking at it's difficult to be sure which it is.

[Anonymous No.9658222]

>>9658161
I mean in this particular case they claim it is evidence of a green screen.

When was the last fucking time you saw this happen in a blockbuster movie? Or during the weather forecast on the news?
You see things go transparent on a green screen at times but that's because the color is within tolerance of the green background. He doesn't change color or anything. He isn't wearing a color that was shown to be transparent. He's just leaving the frame and the motion compensation fucks up.

[Anonymous No.9658252]

>>9658151
Are you able to place it based on this?

[Anonymous No.9658255]

>>9658117
>Have you got video evidence of this occurring elsewhere?

>>9657646
>The whole movement nefariously places the onus on you to prove

[Anonymous No.9658269]

>>9658252
For the record, that is a wildly inaccurate depiction of the ISS orbit. It has an inclination 46°. Your diagram shows it around 80°.

[Anonymous No.9658275]

>>9658269
Please provide a real one.

[Anonymous No.9658283]

>>9658222
>He's just leaving the frame and the motion compensation fucks up.

You believe that do you?

[Anonymous No.9658317]

>>9658283
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9658325]

>>9658275
This is reasonable. It varies a little bit over time from boosting and such (be aware the path itself changes every orbit but the peaks are about the same).

The diagram >>9658252 shows the ISS path much closer to the southern tip of Greenland than it really gets.