/sci/ - Science & Math

>>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!!!

>>9354479
>Educational establishments are not educational, they are there to maintain the status quo. You wouldn't be able to do a PhD without going through the previous hoops of indoctrination.
Not an argument. I pointed out that you were (hypocritically) basing your views on secondhand information (or no evidence at all, in places) and your response was to repeat those views. Truth by repetition isn't a thing.
>Your limits of what? Limit of bullshit?
Limits of ability to do actual work, you pathetic NEET. It takes actual effort to put together a functional methodology and actually do the legwork, to say nothing of the analysis that follows.

>It's not just that the public can't experience them first hand, neither can the scientists
I'm an invertebrate paleontologist. I experience my specimens firsthand. The trouble with just making shit up is that it's painfully obvious to the people who actually do research that you're, well, just making shit up.
>mathematical equations which violate the scientific method
Name a single equation that violates the scientific method.

>>9354522
>the parallax argument can only apply to objects moving from side to side in parallel directions
I Don't Understand Basic Geometry: The Post

>>9354565
>Why aren't they showing a full shot of the earth?
Because the ISS orbits the earth at a height of 254 miles or so. If you do the math (again, this is 8th/9th grade geometry) you find that the Earth spans ~140° from the ISS. To view that, you'd need a super-wide-angle fisheye lens, which would introduce a lot of distortion and make the image look like shit.
Oh wait, I just used a mathematical equation. That's anti-science, right? :^)