/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9884064
Because of the fish-eye lense

>>9884064
Globecucks think they're smart when they see a GoPro in space showing a spherical earth.

>>9884082
Why would they possibly need that?

>>9884064
If the horizon always meets the eye, then why do we see darkness in this pic? If the Earth were flat, wouldn’t we expect it to extend much more than that?

>>9884147
Atmosphere blocks the light from travelling too far.

>>9884088
Because the rig is as small as possible but the camera still needs to capture the full image of the parachuter. Imagine going to all the trouble of planning a jump from a balloon, live streaming it, advertising it, etc., and not having everything in frame.
Imagine knowing this little about video production.

>>9884088
Because a 100mm lens would let you have a FOV is shitall. You might get his head and shoulders in frame if you were lucky.

>>9884082
Do you know that fish eye lenses have actual purpose and are not created to for sinister conspiracy?

>>9884281
This image is actually distorted

>>9884294
Yes because the camera lens is curved still.

>>9884315
It's curved in oposite direction. Making it look like Earth being inside of giant circle or tube

>>9884321
No, the camera lens is curved as normal, it's just the horizon line is centered in the middle of the lens which shows it in its true form. If the camera angle moves up the horizon will convex, and down it will concave.

>>9884088
Because you want to be able to see the man and his capsule at close range.

>>9884281
Oh! Oh! I have something for this!
>flat earthers claim the wide angle lenses correct when the horizon is in the center
>claiming this is the center

>>9884369
>player controls bar obscuring some of the earth at the bottom
>real horizon line is where the faint blue hue touches the black background

Nice try.

>>9884391
>>player controls bar obscuring some of the earth at the bottom
Thanks for pointing that out. Must have slipped by mind when making it.
>>real horizon line is where the faint blue hue touches the black background
No, it's not. But even if we give you that.

Oh, I thought I'd also add a line showing the middle of the frame too, just for clarity sake.

>>9884403
>Must have slipped by mind when making it.
Oh absolutely.
>No, it's not. But even if we give you that.
That's how convergence works - real horizon line is at pic related.

>>9884434
Still not in the center.
I actually lens corrected the image in Lightroom to make that antenna straight.

>>9884506
If the horizon was exactly center, the line would be perfectly flat.

>>9884290
Applause!

>>9884527
When it comes to the shape of the earth, it's best not to use a lens that will make it look spherical.

>>9884513
No. The adjustment for lens correction shows that isn't the case.
The claim that the horizon is flat in the video because it's in the center of the frame is a lie, it's not in the center.
Correcting for the lens distortion by using a known straight object in the frame shows there is visible curve.
The video shows that if something looks like what they want to see, flattards just claim is as proof. They don't apply the same scrutiny as they do to sources that show different to what they want.

>>9884544
They weren't trying to prove the globe Earth, they were trying to film a guy taking a skydive from the edge of space.

>>9884572
Would the horizon be flatter if it was perfectly centered in the frame?

>>9884574
Indeed, but would you agree that using a gopro won't show you the true shape of the earth? And if that's the case, why are weather balloon kits being sold with GoPros included? Like here: https://www.highaltitudescience.com/products/eagle-pro-near-space-kit

Someone post that webm of that guy trying to shoot himself in space in an homemade rocket

>>9884612
No, it would curve upward, uncorrected.

>>9884618
>Indeed, but would you agree that using a gopro won't show you the true shape of the earth?
It will be distorted, sure. Everyone knows how wide angle lenses affect the image you take.
>And if that's the case, why are weather balloon kits being sold with GoPros included?
Because they're aiming for field of view, not perfectly undistorted images.
The fact of the matter is that to get an undistorted image requires a narrower field of view which is usually less visually interesting for landscape shots (which this technically is).
Also, the narrower field of view would make the curve less pronounced as you are looking at a smaller section of it.

>>9884835
What type of lens would show no distortion, and has this been sent up filming the earth?

>>9884874
>What type of lens would show no distortion
A decently made lens around 50mm+ would show little to no distortion.
Have they been set up filming Earth? Well they're certainly among the lenses on the ISS. I have no idea what people have sent up on balloons because footage is almost always claimed to be from wide angle lenses (when presented by flatearthers).

>>9884902
>Well they're certainly among the lenses on the ISS.

Oh really?

>>9884918
I never claimed that the cameras on the outside of the ISS were not wide angle.
They're mostly there for observation purposes, they're trying to see as much as possible. In the cupola module where they stash all their DLSRs they have all their good lenses.

do not respond to flat earth tards
they're here specifically to shitpost, and have been for years

Flat earth is a prank that went way too far

>>9885190
I think it highlights how stupid the average person is perfectly.

>>9884918
That second picture DEMONSTRATES curvature. If the earth were flat and the curvature was only a lense effect then the solar panels would be more curved since they're further from the center of the shot. Instead we see the earth at the center of the image is curving more than the flat edge further from the center.

>earth is actually a rubber band
OHNONONONONONONO!

>>9885462
Is that animation created by moving away from the object and then coming in to make our the same size?

>>9885725
*Zooming in to make it the same size
Sorry

>>9884064
Gravitational lensing

>>9884939
>>9885077
>>9885190
>>9885223
>>9885296
*pats heads* That's right children, this is real. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5cu5OdH1M0

@01:42:50 - Why are the government scared about people searching flat earth?

>>9884064
Due to the lens used to film the clip.

>>9885725
Yes, the difference between physically getting closer to the object and zooming.

>>9884064
>Why is the Earth so round in this image?
Fish-eye lens. When the tallest surface features are 30,000 feet high, you should go up to about 300,000 feet to try to see large-scale structure like curvature. He could probably see it, but it's uncertain.

>>9884064
https://youtu.be/mxhxL1LzKww

>>9884064
Oh fuck dude...it's fake! It's gotta be fake! You really did something here man! Like for real!!!%!>@^@*9#^÷>@<÷<÷^÷>8========D

>>9885725
Yes. It's called the "dolly zoom". You've seen it in film before when a character is somehow made nauseous, like when he first does a shot or sees something extremely nerve racking.

>>9885725
relevant

>>9886008
>@01:42:50 - Why are the government scared about people searching flat earth?
Because it seems to be making people fucking dumb.

flatheads back on their bullshit

flatheads love to claim that the horizon will always rise to eye level. this picture from the observation deck of the Sears Tower in Chicago proves them wrong.

>>9887194
damn, you can approximate the radius of the earth from that picture.

>>9887188
Globecucks back on their bullshit.

>>9887194
The fuck is that supposed to prove? That the horizon rises to higher than eye level? You realise that makes even less sense on a globe?

The camera is clearly pointing down a little bit.

>>9884193
but light doesn't work that way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AstoCxqZM8A

>>9888104
It would with a small, local spotlight sun.

>>9884918
>argues that fisheye lenses are the reason earth looks round
>posts an image proving the opposite
*thinking*

>>9888091
>not smart enough to come up with each square
Lul flatheats confirmed dumb

>>9888111
>thinks this is real
*thinking*

>>9888114
Keep flying through the universe you schizo

>>9888103
there would be no gap if it were an infinite plane. (or it couldn't also be distinguishable on a sphere with a much greater radius)

>>9888115
So what if the image isnt real (it is real btw)? It wouldnt be evidence of a flat earth. Can you come up with an experiment that demonstrates a flat earth? I sure can come up with lots that demonstrate round earth, as well as the principles of classical mechanics and gravity that further suggest a round earth.

>>9888110
It's funny how that video looks exactly like what a sphere of light would look like rotating around another sphere.

>>9888117
>there would be no gap if it were an infinite plane.
Your eyes/cameras cannot see forever - light cannot travel through infinite atmosphere, perspective makes things smaller and smaller until they merge with the horizon line/vanishing point. You cannot see further than your line of perspective.

>>9888116
>the cast majority of the world is schizo, not me!
The webm is not accurate btw. Do you even know the difference between an accelerating reference frame and an inertial one?

>>9888122
>it is real btw
Blind.
>It wouldnt be evidence of a flat earth.
It isn't evidence of a flat earth but it should raise some big red flags.
>Can you come up with an experiment that demonstrates a flat earth?
Bodies of water must be contained. Water will find its level and remain flat, its surface will not take the shape of its container, nor will it conform to the exterior of a spinning sphere.

>>9888124
Pretty deluded - the earth is stationary, the sun and plane are moving.

>>9888115
The image is real except for the added curvature. This satellite is actually sweeping a flat plane.

>>9888128
>Do you even know the difference between an accelerating reference frame and an inertial one?
The earth's orbit around the sun does accelerate and decelerate.

>>9888134
Yes some of it is probably real, but they've added curvature and stupid lighting/SFX

>>9888129
>t it should raise some big red flags.
What big red flags would it raise?

>>9888139
The fact it's not real for a start?

>>9888132
So why does the sun go beneath the horizon?
>>9888135
A very minuscule amount.
>>9888129
>>9888129
>Bodies of water must be contained. Water will find its level and remain flat, its surface will not take the shape of its container, nor will it conform to the exterior of a spinning sphere.
Wat. Basically none of that is true
Water is under the forces of gravity from the earth (and to a lesser extend the tidal forces of all the other objects in the sky). The earth is rotating, so it is not technically an inertial frame. However, the fictional forces from rotation (google fictional forces, euler's laws of motion) are negligible on an object this large that rotates ONCE PER DAY. Do the calculations yourself you massive faggot.
I makes sense that water would tend to fall to areas that minimizes its potential energy--and thus it falls toward the center of gravity of the earth with happens to be very near the of the ball. Why would water shoot off the side of the earth for no reason? Do you think there exists a "down" in space?

>>9888135
>The earth's orbit around the sun does accelerate and decelerate.
Who cares? The euler forces from earth rotating are much more significant--and even those can be neglected under must circumstances.

>>9888125
In a relevant atmosphere you would get a fuzzy horizon. The pic I replied to has a sharp horizon. Other stuff you mentioned are repeating what I said.

>>9888142
You said red flagS, plural. It being fake is one red flag. It's a very, very good fake in that case considering how realistic it looks considering what earth looks like from an airplane or a tall building, considering what our weather and clouds look like, and considering what a a view from satellite orbiting a ball would look like. Tell me anon, what other red flags are there?

>>9888129
>Bodies of water must be contained
Ah, newton's fourth law of motion:
"Bodies of water must be contianed"

>>9888152
>So why does the sun go beneath the horizon?
That's how perspective works. If you lie down on the floor and look straight ahead, and someone starts walking away from you, their feet will start disappearing, then their legs, etc etc.

>A very minuscule amount.
Excuses. Still a few hundred MPH,

>Water is under the forces of gravity from the earth
False, Newton was wrong.
>fictional forces
Kek.
>are negligible on an object this large that rotates ONCE PER DAY
We ain't talking about RPM/RPD - we're talking about speed, two different things.
>Do the calculations yourself you massive faggot.
Calculations mean nothing if they're not based in reality faggot.
>and thus it falls toward the center of gravity of the earth with happens to be very near the of the ball.
Newton was wrong dipshit.
>Do you think there exists a "down" in space?
I don't believe "space" exists.

>>9888156
Standing on equator spinning roughly 1000mph, get on plane fly to north pole. Get off plane, standing on earth spinning roughly 10mph. Will I feel the difference?

>>9888174
>MPH
You don't know what acceleration is or how perspective works.
>>>/x/

>>9888174
You don't believe space exists? Why would anyone believe anything you say? Like ever?

>>9888157
Same logic would apply on a globe. On a clear day, at high altitude where the atmosphere is less dense, it will be sharp. If it's foggy, forget about it.

>>9888162
>It's a very, very good fake in that case considering how realistic it looks
Wtf. It looks ridiculous. They have weather balloons/high alitutude planes that can take footage of clouds etc, but it's added into a CGI mess.

>Tell me anon, what other red flags are there?
ISS faking too much shit.

>>9888166
Prove otherwise using the scientific method. I'm waiting.

>>9888191
*pats head* don't cry little babby you can believe the spinning space testicle if it makes you happy.

>>9888195
Show me a rocket flying in "space" please.

>>9888201
schizophrenia

>>9888212
You can see satelites in orbit from your backyard with a pair of binoculars lmao
>>9888205
you posited the existence of a physical law, not me. burden of proof is on you.

>>9888196
but I was talking about the pic in question.

>>9888226
Says the person who believes in curved spacetime,

>>9888228
>You can see satelites in orbit from your backyard with a pair of binoculars lmao
First of all, satellites are not in "space". Second of all, they're just lights in the sky, you cannot resolve them any more than that. How do we know these lights haven't always been there any they're just piggybacking off them calling the satellites?

>you posited the existence of a physical law, not me. burden of proof is on you.
I can prove this repeatedly. I have a cup, I fill it with water, the surface of the water remains flat and level. I have a bath, I fill it with water, the water remains flat and level. I have a lake, the same thing. I have an ocean, the same thing.

>>9888232
So am I. Just because there's infinite atmosphere doesn't mean you're looking through infinite atmosphere, your line of perspective converges to a central point that is usually a few thousand miles away.

>>9888237
>they're just lights in the sky, you cannot resolve them any more than that.
No true. You can find out when the ISS flys above your house and look at it and clearly see solar panels. If they were always there, that raises just a whole lot more fucking questions. Does "simplicity in argument" mean nothing to you?

How do lunar and solar eclipses work on a flat earth?
Why do the sun and the moon and the planets and the stars sink below the horizon that is infinite and flat?
How can one part of a flat disk be illuminated while the other is dark, even though there is clear line of sight between disk and sun?
Why do objects fall to the ground?
Why does the length of the day change throughout the year?
What keeps the moon or the sun from falling to earth?

How does electromagnetism work?

>>9888249
Again, the "ISS" is not in space. There is zero proof that there is anyone in it, or that it's orbiting a globe. It could be a hologram for all we know.

Considering the supposed amount of space debris and micro meteors/normal meteors it's a wonder that nothing has ever punctured it, killing all on board, considering they're apparently going over 17,000mph.

They've also never done a 24 hour livestream inside the ISS - why is that?

>>9888265
What the fuck is space other than the "thing" that contains the earth? You are in space right now.

>>9888262
>How do lunar and solar eclipses work on a flat earth?
Solar eclipse happens the same way, lunar eclipse happens between the sun and moon, earth is not involved. The moon is self-illuminating, but reacts differently when directly opposite the sun.

>Why do the sun and the moon and the planets and the stars sink below the horizon that is infinite and flat?
Because they are local and affected by our perspective just as everything else is. As the stars rotate, they move closer and further away, the closer they are the higher in the sky they become, the further away, the closer to the horizon they become.

>How can one part of a flat disk be illuminated while the other is dark, even though there is clear line of sight between disk and sun?
Because the sun is small and localised, it acts like a spotlight. The atmosphere acts like a curtain that will block the sunlight more and more as the sun gets further and further away until no more light can travel through the atmosphere to your eyes.

>Why do objects fall to the ground?
The simplest answer people give is density and buoyancy, helium rises because it's less dense than the air, bricks fall because they are denser than the air. You could also call this pressure, objects with high pressure equilibrate with high pressure, the quickest route to this being down, low pressure equilibrates with low pressure, the quickest route to this being up.

>Why does the length of the day change throughout the year?
Because the sun not only circles above the plane, it moves in and out across the equator, creating the seasons. It also only lights up a portion of the earth at a time due it being a spotlight.

>What keeps the moon or the sun from falling to earth?
Best theory is electromagnetism - the aether.

>How does electromagnetism work?
We need proper investigation into the aether again - relativity was designed to mask it and it did well enough until came to the rotation of galaxies, now they're stuck with "dark matter".

>>9888270
By "space" I mean the vacuum that our atmosphere supposedly co-exists side by side with without a solid barrier. Satellites/ISS are not in a vacuum.

>>9888281
>Best theory is electromagnetism - the aether.
>We need proper investigation into the aether again
Hurr, durr, I need a stupid theory for my stupid theory to be valid.

>>9888281
lmao

How do the phases of the moon work?
How can the northern hemisphere have a season with long days simulataneously with the south have shorter days?
Why do airlines and shipping companies participate in the conspiracy?
Ignoring atmospheric effects, why do objects dip below horizon when far away if that is completely counter intuitive?
How do gps, satelite television, long range radio broadcasts work on a flat earth?
Why did the pioneers of electromagnetism and every technology you ever laid hands on all believe in round earth?

>>9888285
>By "space" I mean the vacuum that our atmosphere supposedly co-exists side by side with without a solid barrier.
You don't need a solid barrier if you have gravity.... But if you don't...

>Because they are local and affected by our perspective just as everything else is.
Somebody don't know how perspective works....

>>9888281
>The simplest answer people give is density and buoyancy, helium rises because it's less dense than the air
Somebody don't know how hot air balloons work.... Nor scales....

>>9888297
>How can the northern hemisphere have a season with long days simulataneously with the south have shorter days?
To add to that: how stars can be different in northern and southern hemispheres (depending only on latitude and not on longitude)?

>>9888287
It was concluded that the aether didn't exist because "aether drag" wasn't detected.

It wasn't detected because the earth is not moving. They had to get relativity out before people started questioning if the earth was actually moving.

>>9888297
>How do the phases of the moon work?
The moon isn't reflecting the sun's light/energy, rather absorbing it and re-emitting it as an opposite light/energy. Sounds fucking crazy I know by the moon's light has opposite properties to the sun's light, including temperature and affect on plants/nature.

>How can the northern hemisphere have a season with long days simulataneously with the south have shorter days?
Because the sun spirals inwards and outwards. It will circle closely around the north pole illuminating it for longer, then back out again towards the equator and beyond.

>Why do airlines and shipping companies participate in the conspiracy?
They're not in on it, just as you are not in on it when you drive around a country.

>Ignoring atmospheric effects, why do objects dip below horizon when far away if that is completely counter intuitive?
Perspective. Lie on the floor, look straight ahead, watch someone walk away, their feet will disappear first, then their legs, and so on and so on. Read up on how perspective works, it will all make sense and you can test it for yourself.

>How do gps, satelite television, long range radio broadcasts work on a flat earth?
Land based communcation towers, undersea cables are used for 99% of communication (so they say), and you can also bounces waves off the magnetosphere (magnetoflat).

>Why did the pioneers of electromagnetism and every technology you ever laid hands on all believe in round earth?
Maybe they didn't? Would be career suicide if they publicly announced it. They never got a chance to offer an electromagnetic alternative to gravity. Although Tesla was very outspoken against curved spacetime and relativity in general.

>>9888304
>It wasn't detected because the earth is not moving.
There are aether drag experiments which don't involve the earth movement, but you just ignore them because it's not convenient for your stupid theory. One example is the Lodge experiment in 1891 (the paper can be found in wikisource https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Experiments_on_the_Absence_of_Mechanical_Connexion_between_Ether_and_Matter).).

>>9888302
>You don't need a solid barrier if you have gravity.... But if you don't...
Gravity is not strong enough to stop a pressurised atmosphere of the earth equilibrating with an infinite vacuum of space. A gas will find the path of least resistance, which a vacuum obviously is.

>Somebody don't know how perspective works....
Considering I've done over a 100 hours of research on this subject I think I have a pretty good idea.

>Somebody don't know how hot air balloons work.... Nor scales....
Failing to see the point here.

>To add to that: how stars can be different in northern and southern hemispheres (depending only on latitude and not on longitude)?
Because there are different stars in the sky, and depending on where you are, you will see different ones.

>>9888304
Put the Michelson interferometer on an aircraft, they're easily accurate enough to detect a few hundred m/s of "aether drag".

Also the cavendish experiment, Foucault pendulum, and Michelson interferometer are all things that can be constructed at home.

>>9888323
Yes but the point is the experiments to detect drag were done under the assumption that the earth was moving, if it wasn't detected then the options were the earth isn't moving, the earth is moving and there's no aether, or there is aether but it doesn't create drag etc. Instead of exploring these, it was concluded it didn't exist and they moved on.

>>9888334
>A gas will find the path of least resistance, which a vacuum obviously is.

Assuming gravity is true, you can just look at it as a conservation of energy. Gravity makes a potential energy gradient equal to the integral of gravitational force with respect to distance. To escape Earth's gravity, you need to overcome all of this energy, which can be calculated by integrating this force from the Earth's radius R to infinity. This just turns out to be GMm/R, or 63MJ/kg of potential energy. That is a large amount, and we can convert it to specific kinetic energy and hence velocity; E/m = GM/R = 1/2*v^2: we end up with 11,187m/s.

Unless the gas molecules of the atmosphere have this much energy then they're not getting out of our sphere of influence. Cosmic rays and solar wind and such can impart such energy upon particles of Earth's atmosphere, but our magnetic field repulses a lot of these. Without our magnetic field our atmosphere would end up like Mars'.

>>9888339
Miller had the most accurate instrument: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

>cavendish experiment
Uses lead balls, they have as much static electricity as cat's fur.

>Foucault pendulum
Stop working properly during a solar eclipse - use a magnetic tip and materials that can be affected by the magnetic field - in no way proves it is detecting the earth's spin.

>>9888186
Only if your plane will warp out from equator to pole

>>9888414
Lead is a conductor, if electrically connected there can be no charge separation.

I'm saying that you can build these things yourself, so obviously you'd build a pendulum that isn't magnetic, an interferometer accurate enough, and a torsion balance that takes care of static electricity. Instead of taking either sides data for granted, do it yourself mate.

>>9888368
So would you then say that curved spacetime is holding the atmosphere in?

To me, this whole terminal velocity thing is just a cover for the barrier that is actually up there, because it implies that if you're going say, 1000mph, you will eventually reach a stop, like you've hit a barrier, and then you go back down again.

>>9888443
>To me, this whole terminal velocity thing is just a cover for the barrier that is actually up there, because it implies that if you're going say, 1000mph, you will eventually reach a stop, like you've hit a barrier, and then you go back down again.
Luckily it doesn't matter what you think.

>>9888443
Regardless of whether you take a relativistic view or a newtonian view, the idea of gravitational force, inverse square law, etc. remains. I calculated that terminal velocity from simple calculus, it just represents the velocity needed to escape the Earth's sphere of influence, though the idea of a sphere of influence is a little misleading. For a massive body in free space, there is no limit to the extent of the body's gravity, you'll be influenced by it even if you travel light years away. But since the Earth orbits a sun, we treat the sphere of influence's size as the approximate radius where you're more strongly pulled by the Sun's gravity than the Earths'. I say approximate because it depends on which side of the planet you're on. The visual representation of "gravity wells" works well for this. No hard wall, just a gradient changing directions.

>>9888437
Why wouldn't I feel any difference?

>>9888321
>it as an opposite light/energy. Sounds fucking crazy I know by the moon's light has opposite properties to the sun's light, including temperature and affect on plants/nature.
Because its bullshit and all "experiments" done to prove it are done by idiots who dont know how temperature works and how to mesure it

>>9888438
I'm just saying you can't rule out an electromagnetic effect when you're using lead balls - seems like something else should be used.

Regardless though, Cavendish was trying to prove Newtonian gravity, yet it's incorrect, so is it measuring spacetime curvature?

>I'm saying that you can build these things yourself, so obviously you'd build a pendulum that isn't magnetic, an interferometer accurate enough, and a torsion balance that takes care of static electricity. Instead of taking either sides data for granted, do it yourself mate.
Seems like the next step - practical science is pretty much dead at the moment.

>>9888472
Because you would be still fly on spinning globe and its force of spinning would be still affecting you, slowly decreasing as you move close to north pole

>>9888472
Because your angular speed is so tiny. You're rotating at w = 73µrad/s. You can verify this law with a spring, string, and a few weights (and probably a video camera) or just derive it from Newton's laws, but the specific centripetal force F/m is described by F/m = v^2/r = w^2*r. Hence this force is about 0.034N/kg, or 0.034m/s^2. This makes it 0.34% as strong as gravity, so it's no wonder you don't feel a difference from the pole to the equator.

>>9888495
Again, at non relativistic conditions (low speed, temperature, etc.) spacetime curvature and newtonian gravity are indistinguishable. And if you connect a tiny copper wire from between all the lead balls and to ground then you'll have zero electrostatic forces, it isn't difficult. You can even use an electrometer to measure it and ensure it's grounded properly.

>>9888451
Salty.

>>9888463
>Regardless of whether you take a relativistic view or a newtonian view, the idea of gravitational force, inverse square law, etc. remains.
Relativity doesn't treat gravity as a force though. It also seems odd that you can escape gravity's influence easily on the ground, when it is at its strongest, but you cannot escape it when it is at its weakest. There is also an inverse square relationship between the pressure of the air on the ground, and the pressure of the air at the highest altitude - if the pressure is created by the air pressing against a barrier, then we don't need gravity, the pressure gradient of the air perfectly replaces it.

>>9888485
You've done it then?

>>9888497
But you're flying over a globe that is spinning at a different speed every millimeter north. Unless you're saying the air spins the plane with the earth? Can't see that happening, especially when the air at high altitude will be spinning at a different speed to the earth below.

>>9888528
Yes, and it came back negative for any cooling affect by moonlight.

>>9888334
>Because there are different stars in the sky, and depending on where you are, you will see different ones.
How come you can see the same stars anywhere in the southern hemisphere, for example the southern circumpolar stars and constellations like the Southern Cross?
How come I can go out at night in New Zealand in the winter, at sunset see the Southern Cross appear, watch it move around an invisible point in the sky all night, and then someone in South Africa can watch the sunset and see the Southern Cross appear while I am still seeing it, and it will appear in a southerly direction for both of us?

>>9888521
Air pressure doesn't decrease at an inverse square relationship, it's much closer to an inverse exponential, and with a much faster rate of decay than gravity. Up where the atmosphere is only 1% as thick, the gravity is still 99% as strong.

And the idea that "no it isn't actually a force" is semantical reasoning that has no relevance in this non-relativistic instance. It can be measured and approximated to be a force in a manner easily accurate enough for what we're referring to. You're shifting goalposts. Newton's laws didn't suddenly become wrong because Einstein and what showed up, they just were less accurate at conditions outside the realm of the experiments they were devised form. Galileo could determine the motion of the planets without knowing anything about gravity, just geometry.

>>9888528
Look at the light coming from the sun with a spectrometer, or through a diffracting grating. Then do the same for the moon.

>>9888533
Do you know why the average wind travels to the west?

>>9888281
Buoyancy is caused by a pressure gradient, which only exists because the fluid particles at the bottom are at a higher pressure than those below. In other words, there is more force on those lower particles, and under the gravitational explanation this force is just from the fluid particles above it pushing down. Do the Newtonian calculations yourself, for water to have 100kPa more pressure every 10 metres below the surface, what kind of force has to be present?

>>9888533
Air spins with Earth.
Also plane need to conterbalance rotation diffrence to stay on straight course to north

>>9888528
I done similar test with blanket and LED light from other thread and can confirm some light have cooling efect.

>>9888749
Explain your experiment and control. I've got dozens of different LEDs lying about, plus a thermocouple or two.

>>9888334
>>9888334
>Considering I've done over a 100 hours of research on this subject I think I have a pretty good idea.
It seems that it isn't as good as you think....

>>Somebody don't know how hot air balloons work.... Nor scales....
>Failing to see the point here.
The point is that hot air is less dense than cold air, but in contrast with you "density theory", it raises. That's how a hot air balloon works.

And regarding scales.... If density is the only important thing here. Why a scale give you the double of the weigh when you put, for example, two apples instead of one? It's like it doesn't depend on density but on something like density times volume...... "Only if we had a name for that quantity......"

>>9888547
>How come you can see the same stars anywhere in the southern hemisphere, for example the southern circumpolar stars and constellations like the Southern Cross?
That's the thing. In a flat earth, stars have to depend for sure with longitude (and maybe with latitude). And we can see that it actually depends only on latitude.

>>9888521
>Relativity doesn't treat gravity as a force though.
Don't care, in the limit of low energies General Relativity recovers Newtonian Gravity (as a good theory of gravity should do).

>>9888521
>It also seems odd that you can escape gravity's influence easily on the ground
No, you can't "easily" escape, that why rockets are so big (but you don't believe in rockets, so....)

>There is also an inverse square relationship between the pressure of the air on the ground, and the pressure of the air at the highest altitude
The force is inverse square, their effects are not, as >>9888548 say.

>>9888936
There nothing to explain about taking piss at flaterthers moonlight experiments

>>9884193
Why can you see the sun

>>9888536
pics or it didn't happen

>>9888205
Clouds, water droplets on a smooth surface, water in a straw being held by pressure.

oh boy, it's this guy again. I recognize him by his TOTAL IGNORANCE OF OPTICS.
hey, remember when I posted this video:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOsxgGeABGM
and you claimed that the observed curvature was caused by distortion from the camera lens despite the pan over the instrument panel clearly proving that not to be the case?
good times, you delusional brainlet.

>>9888174
>If you lie down on the floor and look straight ahead, and someone starts walking away from you, their feet will start disappearing, then their legs, etc etc.
...have you ever actually tried this? because that's not what happens. they'll appear to get smaller and smaller, but at no point will any part of them disappear behind an object that isn't physically between you and them.
>Newton was wrong.
Not An Argument

>>9888265
>It could be a hologram for all we know
you can literally see the ISS transit in front of the sun. if you think a hologram can block out light, you have no idea what a hologram is.

>>9888281
>The moon is self-illuminating
with a $50 telescope you can see shadows cast by the rims of the moon's craters.
>Because the sun is small and localised, it acts like a spotlight
a lightbulb is also small and localized but it emits light in all directions, not in one direction.
>The simplest answer people give is density and buoyancy
density and buoyancy only work if gravity exists.

>>9888285
>the vacuum that our atmosphere supposedly co-exists side by side with without a solid barrier
the atmosphere and the ocean already co-exist side by side without a solid barrier.

>>9888334
>Gravity is not strong enough to stop a pressurised atmosphere of the earth equilibrating with an infinite vacuum of space.
if you think gravity doesn't exist, how do you know it's too weak to keep the atmosphere on the earth?
>I've done over a 100 hours of research on this subject
lmao
nibba you literally think that the view from the bottom and the middle of an infinite hallway will be the exact same.

>>9884918
This guy is right, those two pictures were obviously taken using all the lenses on the ISS.

>>9886867
Best use of it I ever saw was in Jaws, when they do a dolly zoom on Brody's face as he sits on the beach and witnesses a shark attack that he could have prevented. Scheider's acting made it work, but the use of the dolly zoom was brilliant.

>>9888125
Can you see stars near the horizon? Are they touching the edge of the Earth? Have you got a moment to go take some close-up pictures of these stars?

If the earth is flat how come gravity is actually real, wouldn't the center of mass of earth be distorted and therefore gravity apply in a different way?

>>9891004
>how come gravity is actually real
That is also something they argue against, that the flat Earth is simply accelerating "upwards" instead of gravity existing. Proving the existence of attraction between masses requires a fairly sensitive piece of kit, since it's such a weak force, but by no means impossible for a hobbyist.

>>9891012
I found big G in 8th grade for a science fair project. Upside down fish tank, some thin wire, big weights, webcam, time-lapse software. Ezpz. Was off by quite a lot, but still within reason for being a shit setup.

>>9891012
Lmao what. How would the earth accelerating upwards work? if it is a true acceleration then it would get progressively faster and therefore we would weight more and more every day, but that doesn't happen.

>>9891020
A torsion balance? Why in a fish tank, to remove vibrations/wind?

>>9891021
Incorrect, both the Earth and us would be in the same reference frame, hence our weight would feel exactly the same. One of Einstein's postulates is that gravity is indistinguishable from conventional acceleration, which is partly where the idea of curved spacetime comes from.

these theories are made by an american right?

who would win?
a greek thousands of years ago measuring the shadow of a stick at noon ?
or an american with one of the most advanced space programs in the world in his home soil?

>>9890428
OP once and for all btfo?

>>9891330
correct, no wind. took measurement for a week, then swapped the weight positions. oscillations shifted as a result (the webcam was pointed at a mirror, which reflected onto a meter-stick that was hung on the wire. then I made measurements based on the "lengths" the webcam could see).

>>9891355
The torsion balance at our physics lab uses a laser aimed at that mirror so you can film/take measurements of the position of the dot against a piece of card with angles written on it. But I can see both methods having issues underwater due to refraction. Being underwater would also surely help with dampening the oscillations, right?

>>9891380
hmm? no, the fish tank is empty. It just keeps the wind out.

I would have used a laser, but it was against the rules of the state science fair thing

>>9891388
I guess the whole upside down thing should have clued me in...

>>9891012
No real flat earther believes that dumb shit. It's the density of an object in whatever medium it's in that causes the fall. Denser than air? Fall. Denser than water? Sink. Simple. Doesn't fall/sink in the medium like denser objects? Buoyancy. Simple.

>>9891428
>image
Imagine knowing nothing whatsoever about focal length

>>9891428
>Buoyancy
Define buoyanc without invoking forces or gravity, I dare

>>9891429
Imagine you not using common sense
Oh wait...

>focal length
Focal length wouldn't magically increase the size of a continent 2.5x, and it's dimensions be entirely disproportionate to the spherical object it's on. Try again.

>>9884210
Imagine knowing fucking anything about video production

>>9891431
Why would I need to "invoke" gravity.
I'm just repeating myself.
The object doesn't fall/sink in the medium like denser objects? The object's pressure (density) is weaker than the pressure (density) of the medium it's in, thus the medium forces said object up and out keeping it afloat. Simple.

>>9889680
>Why can you see the sun
On a foggy day why can you see the sun directly above but not a house 500 feet away?

>>9891461
>The object's pressure (density) is weaker than the pressure (density) of the medium it's in
I better add dimensional analysis to the long, long list of things that flatheads stubbornly refuse to understand

if you actually think pressure and density are the same or even interchangeable, there's no hope left for you and you should probably just commit kakuro

>>9891439
>Focal length wouldn't magically increase the size of a continent 2.5x, and it's dimensions be entirely disproportionate to the spherical object it's on. Try again.
Ok, how about this pic?

>>9891461
>Why would I need to "invoke" gravity.
Maybe because the force associated to buoyancy is rho*V*g?

>The object doesn't fall/sink in the medium like denser objects? The object's pressure (density) is weaker than the pressure (density) of the medium it's in, thus the medium forces said object up and out keeping it afloat. Simple.
If density is the only important quantity here, why does a scale give you the double of the weigh when you put, for example, two apples instead of one? It's like it doesn't depend on density but on something like density times volume...... If only we had a name for that quantity......

>>9884290
/thread

>>9891428
It makes more sense than your buoyancy description, as I already stated earlier: >>9888683

But ignoring that, I've just calculated the distance required to get those two images, approximately speaking. The one on the right has the USA taking up about 3/5 the width of the globe, and since the USA is about 4500km wide, that would make this distance "L" equal to 5/3*4500 = 7500km. Using the equation [math] L = R*arccos(\frac{R}{r}) [/math] where r is the satellite's orbital radius and R is the radius of the Earth, 6371km. Or [math]r = R*cosec(\frac{L}{R})[/math]. By plugging in R and L, we get a radius of 7660km, which corresponds to an altitude of 1290km. This is well above the boundary of space, and if you were in the ISS, the entire USA would take up your entire vision of the Earth since L would be lesser than 4500km. Doing the same to the left-most image gives an L of perhaps 10000km, and so a radius of about 9000km, altitude of 2630km. Do the geometry, you should get the same result.

>>9891570
>dimensional analysis
Well for starters they'd have to start using measurements that don't have the same unit for force and mass, that's a hotbed of confusion just waiting for flatheads to sink their teeth into.

>>9891330
None of that changes the fact you are making shit up to justify your theory which has so many holes in it that a man shot 200 times looks humble by comparison

>>9891831
No I'm >>9891012, just someone with experience listening to Flathead arguments, not a flatter myself. I mentioned Einstein and relativity, both of which are largely refuted by flat earth "theory".

>>9891330
Bitch, you saying that we are on a magical piece of pizza which magically goes up, are you really this delusional or are you trolling?
Not to mention that you are not even presenting what force is lifting up the flat earth so as to take us all up with it

>>9891854
NO YOU FUCKS

>>9891855
You suck at math bro.

>>9891853
You should be hanged for your crimes

Arguing over the camera lens is idiotic and irrelevant! We all know the only “lens” that matter is the lens part of your eyes, which are round, thustly why this earth appears spherical

>>9891867
>>9891882
I don't follow.

>>9884064

>>9884064
They are on Kerbin, Duh.

>>9892948
Does it really take 4 times longer to fly from South Africa to Australia as it does to fly across the US?

So what experiments can the flat earth be proven, ie. if we go to antarctica and break a few rules

>>9884088
OMGOOOOD
YOU DENSE MOTHER FUCKERS DON'T GET IT DO YOU???!!!
THE EARTH IS FUCKING FLAT OKKKK??
YOU COULD SEND ME TO SPACE AND SHOW ME THE "ROUND EARTH" AND WOULD STILL BE FUCKING FLAT!!!!!!!!!

YOU PICE OF SHIIIT FUCKING LITTLE GOVMNT CUNT COMMUNIST PIECE OF SHIT SHITLORD MOTHER FUUUUUCKERRRR!!!! PIECE OF SHIT DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE
IS FLAT IS FUCKING FLAT FLAT FLAT FALT FLAT FLAT FLATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!! FUUUUCKING FLAAAAATTT!!
FUCKING JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF COUD COME FROM HEAVEN AND TELL ME THE EARTH IS ROUND. EVEN THE LORD GOD THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING COULD COME IN PERSON AND SAY IT'S ROUND AND SHOW ME AND GIVE ME THE KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHINGGGG AND HOW ROUND IT IS!!

I DON'T CARE YOU MORRON I REJECT ALL EARTH'S FUCKING FLAT! FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT FLATTTTTTTT!!! FUCKER FUCKER FLAT FLAT FLATLDKALDKLALALALALAL!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH;HHHHGHGGGGGGGGGFGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
FLAAAAAAAAAAAAATTT!!!

>>9884572
STILL FUCKING FLAT AIN'T LISTENING TO YOU GOVRMENT GOMUNIST SHILL. STILLL FLAAAAAAAAT!!!

Any object is made up of the sum of its parts. Furthermore, if the whole's parts are in turn made up of smaller parts, then the whole also can be said to contain those smaller parts.

Since any feature of a part would by definition also be contained within the whole, it could be said that the whole contains at least in part the properties of all its parts.

We know that the Earth contains round objects upon it, such as sports balls and my nuts. Therefor, it can be logically concluded that the Earth has the property of roundness within it. Therefor, the Earth is round.

>>9893218
The Earth is a tetrahedron.

>>9893393
the Earth is a rhombus
pls respond

>>9893440
respond

to all flattards

>>9891572
You missed the
>entirely disproportionate to the spherical object it's on
part. Compare your image to the one I put and you'll see north america is way out of proportion.

>>9894292
gonna be honest though, still new to the flat earth, give me a little time to research and hopefully if this thread is still open, I'll have an answer for all of you.

It's called gravitational lensing. It looks so round because the gravitational pull curves the lens of the camera

>>9890428
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOsxgGeABGM
Holy shit kid that's the best you've got? Filming through bent glass and deliberately making sure the horizon line stays at the top of the frame? Why doesn't he move the camera around instead of being a pussy?

>...have you ever actually tried this? because that's not what happens. they'll appear to get smaller and smaller, but at no point will any part of them disappear behind an object that isn't physically between you and them.
Absolute dingbat. Yes I've done this before you cretinous swine. The lower you are, the closer your horizon line becomes. If anyone moves pass this horizon line that meets at your eye level, they will begin to be obstructed by it. Prove otherwise, you can't.

>Not An Argument
It damn well is an argument, for you cannot say that gravity is a force pulling things towards the center of mass.

>you can literally see the ISS transit in front of the sun. if you think a hologram can block out light, you have no idea what a hologram is.
I said it COULD be one for all we know - some faggy little thing flying in the sky doesn't prove anything.

>with a $50 telescope you can see shadows cast by the rims of the moon's craters.
You assume they are shadows, you assume they are craters. You don't have any clue what they are unless you go there yourself.

>a lightbulb is also small and localized but it emits light in all directions, not in one direction.
What is your point?

>density and buoyancy only work if gravity exists.
What, curved spacetime? "Gravity" is just a catch-all word that describes the behaviour of objects, it doesn't actually exist as a physical substance, therefore is not scientific.

>the atmosphere and the ocean already co-exist side by side without a solid barrier.
The atmosphere and the ocean are contained within a pressurised system. An atmosphere side by side a vacuum is pressure next to de-pressure - impossible.

>>9894437
>If anyone moves pass this horizon line that meets at your eye level, they will begin to be obstructed by it.
Therefore they are behind the horizon, and therefore the are below the line you call the horizon, therefore there a curve.

>It damn well is an argument, for you cannot say that gravity is a force pulling things towards the center of mass.
What you can't say is "Newton is wrong" only because you have a dumb idea about the earth.

>I said it COULD be one for all we know - some faggy little thing flying in the sky doesn't prove anything.
"If it suits me the ISS is a hologram, if it doesn't it is another thing"

>You assume they are shadows, you assume they are craters. You don't have any clue what they are unless you go there yourself.
Are you so tightfisted that you won't buy a telescope to see it by yourself?


>>a lightbulb is also small and localized but it emits light in all directions, not in one direction.
>What is your point?
It is obvious that you don't know how light works.

>What, curved spacetime? "Gravity" is just a catch-all word that describes the behaviour of objects, it doesn't actually exist as a physical substance, therefore is not scientific.
That's not an answer. You don't know how buoyancy nor gravity works. You only say that "gravity doesn't work" because 1. you don't understand it and 2. doesn't suit you.

>An atmosphere side by side a vacuum is pressure next to de-pressure - impossible.
Gravity explains it perfectly, but you don't want that explanation because you don't like gravity.

>>9894461
>Therefore they are behind the horizon, and therefore the are below the line you call the horizon, therefore there a curve.
Webm related - why does the ship disappear? Hint, it goes behind the horizon, NOT a curve. Learn how perspective works.

>What you can't say is "Newton is wrong" only because you have a dumb idea about the earth.
The heliocentric model (Greek God worship of Helios) is constructed upon the foundation of a gravitational universe, which forces matter into spheres. Without this, you are fucked.

>"If it suits me the ISS is a hologram, if it doesn't it is another thing"
Looks like a hologram here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf8-e4YW-Ds
How can it be reflecting any light? Doesn't make any sense. No one's in that fucking thing.

>Are you so tightfisted that you won't buy a telescope to see it by yourself?
I have seen what look to be shadows and craters - that doesn't mean that's actually what they are. How can these craters supposedly formed from meteor impacts be as perfectly circular as they are? Why hasn't anyone captured a new one being created? Why hasn't anyone captured anything impacting the moon if it's a solid object?

>It is obvious that you don't know how light works.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is? The sun is small and local, and circles above the flat, infinite plane, lighting up only a portion of the earth at a time.

>That's not an answer. You don't know how buoyancy nor gravity works. You only say that "gravity doesn't work" because 1. you don't understand it and 2. doesn't suit you.
Are you saying you understand what gravity is? No one does, Newton was wrong, Einstein is wrong, no "graviton" has been found, it is incompatible with quantum physics - at what point will the cult scientism community accept "gravity" is nothing more than a mathematical tool for prediction, and doesn't actually exist scientifically?

>>9894523
webm related

>>9894523
>Learn how perspective works.
You are the one who don't know how perspective works, there are many people who have told you so: >>9889405 >>9890428

>The heliocentric model (Greek God worship of Helios) is constructed upon the foundation of a gravitational universe
That SURE sound right..... The heliocentric model was created after Newton proposed his Gravitational theory..... And this is because Newton was born before III a. C (or if you prefer it, 1543, when De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published)....

>Looks like a hologram here
You wouldn't distinguish a hologram even if it bites you in the ass.

>How can it be reflecting any light?
"The ISS is not real because it reflect light", that's a new one.... And dumb as the author.

> How can these craters supposedly formed from meteor impacts be as perfectly circular as they are?
Cylindrical symmetry. They are not "perfectly circular" as you say (you would have known that if you had bought that telescope) and the ones on earth are also nearly circular: List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth

>Why hasn't anyone captured a new one being created? Why hasn't anyone captured anything impacting the moon if it's a solid object?
Because there are not so many meteorites these days. And, again, you are wrong: https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2014/feb/24/meteorite-hits-moon-lunar-impact-video

> lighting up only a portion of the earth at a time.
Thanks to your "mysterious aether"....

>Are you saying you understand what gravity is?
At least better than you.

>Newton was wrong
If you take the small curvature limit of General Relativity you recover Newton's theory of Gravity, so he wasn't so wrong.

>Einstein is wrong
Because you say so.....

>no "graviton" has been found
Because we can't reach the energy regime where gravity becomes quantum.

>it is incompatible with quantum physics
You don't need a quantum theory of gravity to know how it works at low curvature and small energies.

Lunar Analemma, this kills the globe.

>>9894526
the ship disappears because it's a shit camera with bad resolution

>>9894872
>the ship disappears because it's a shit camera with bad resolution
The ship disappears because you can't handle the truth.

>>9894844
>You are the one who don't know how perspective works, there are many people who have told you so
Watching a ship sailing off into the distance on the beach, what affect would perspective have on the ship?

>That SURE sound right..... The heliocentric model was created after Newton proposed his Gravitational theory
Try 3rd century BC - Pythagorous laid out the mathematical tools to construct such models, but even he said that mathematical models are tools of prediction rather than based on how reality actually works.

>You wouldn't distinguish a hologram even if it bites you in the ass.
Can you explain what is lighting up the ISS in that video?

>Because there are not so many meteorites these days. And, again, you are wrong: https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2014/feb/24/meteorite-hits-moon-lunar-impact-video
How convenient. Also, that video is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

>Thanks to your "mysterious aether"....
It's actually due to this thing called "air", light can't pass through it forever, creating day and night.
>At least better than you.
Don't cut yourself on those spacetime edges, I think they're made of dark matter as well.

>If you take the small curvature limit of General Relativity you recover Newton's theory of Gravity, so he wasn't so wrong.
Well done Newton.
>Because you say so.....
Rotations of galaxies tell me, among many other things.
>Because we can't reach the energy regime where gravity becomes quantum.
What a shame, I guess the only solution is source billions of dollars to build something that can.
>You don't need a quantum theory of gravity to know how it works at low curvature and small energies.
Spacetime rules!

>two flat earth threads
better check the catalog for which thread project normalize is trying to scroll

>>9894292
>north america is way out of proportion.
did you even read the post? a short focal length makes features on the globe appear larger in comparison because less of the globe is visible. are you claiming that North America is out of proportion to the globe itself or to other features on the globe?

>>9894437
>Filming through bent glass
read the description, brainlet. he links to videos shot through the same window showing no distortion from the window except at the very bottom.

>The lower you are, the closer your horizon line becomes. If anyone moves pass this horizon line that meets at your eye level, they will begin to be obstructed by it.
maybe you missed the part where I said
>at no point will any part of them disappear behind an object that isn't physically between you and them
>behind an object that ISN'T physically between you and them
given this law of perspective, and the fact that things DO disappear behind the horizon, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is between you and things that go behind the horizon, thus proving that the Earth has curvature.
congratulations, you played yourself.

>It damn well is an argument
no, you pecan, saying "Newton was wrong" is an ASSERTION, not an argument.

>I said it COULD be one for all we know
and you were wrong; the transit of the ISS across the sun proves it CANNOT be a hologram
>some faggy little thing flying in the sky doesn't prove anything
nice backpedaling

>You assume they are shadows, you assume they are craters.
you can literally see them with your own eyes, retard.
and you can observe the same crater over the course of a month and find that the shadows always point away from the sun from the feature casting them.

>What is your point?
that your claim that the sun casts light only in a cylinder rather than omnidirectionally is false. EVEN IF the sun were close to the earth, it would still radiate in all directions. that's how light sources work.

>"Gravity" is just a catch-all word that describes the behaviour of objects
so you admit gravity exists, you just don't like to call it that. uh huh.
>it doesn't actually exist as a physical substance, therefore is not scientific
this is just gibberish. electricity doesn't exist as a physical substance either. neither does velocity, light, or heat.

>>9894437
>An atmosphere side by side a vacuum is pressure next to de-pressure - impossible.
it's quite possible; there just needs to be some force (i.e. gravity) to maintain the pressure gradient.
the fact that wind exists proves that pressure differentials can exist without a solid barrier.

>>9894523
>Hint, it goes behind the horizon, NOT a curve.
in order for an object to go behind the horizon without being infinitely far away REQUIRES that the surface be curved.

>Looks like a hologram here
what, you mean because the picture is blurry?
again, you have no idea what a hologram is.
>How can it be reflecting any light?
it's made of metal and it's in direct line of the sun, dumbass.

>How can these craters supposedly formed from meteor impacts be as perfectly circular as they are?
basic Newtonian mechanics.
>Why hasn't anyone captured a new one being created? Why hasn't anyone captured anything impacting the moon if it's a solid object?
you are terminally retarded.
>https://www.space.com/24789-moon-meteorite-impact-brightest-lunar-explosion.html

>The sun is small and local, and circles above the flat, infinite plane, lighting up only a portion of the earth at a time.
>Newton was wrong, Einstein is wrong, no "graviton" has been found, it is incompatible with quantum physics
saying so doesn't make it true. you have no actual evidence for this whatsoever.

>>9895221
It sounds more like he's complaining about it not looking the right size. If he wants to, he can download a sketchup model of a globe and zoom in on it until he gets an accurate recreation of either of the two photos, though I'm unsure if sketchup has variable FOV.

>>9895254
>in order for an object to go behind the horizon without being infinitely far away REQUIRES that the surface be curved.
Maybe it just went behind the clearly visible giant wall of antarctic ice?

Anyone know how difficult it is to integrate the force of gravity vs the atmosphere through all heights to get atmospheric pressure as a function of altitude? Ignoring temperature, and even approximating gravity as 9.81 if need-be? So far I've got [math]P(z) = \frac{Mg}{RT} \int_z^\infty P(z) •dz[/math], though I think I might have my variables a little mixed up. M is molar mass, g is gravitational acceleration, and R, T, and P are the standard thermodynamic values.

>>9895302
>Anyone know how difficult it is to integrate the force of gravity vs the atmosphere through all heights to get atmospheric pressure as a function of altitude? Ignoring temperature, and even approximating gravity as 9.81 if need-be?
It's easy, using the ideal gas formula (M* is the molar mass of the air) and assuming the hydrostatic pressure and constant gravitational acceleration:
PM*/RT=rho=-(dP/dz)/g
dP/P=-M*gdz/RT
P=P_0 Exp[-M*gz/RT]

If you want to drop the assumption of constant gravitational acceleration, you only have to substitute gz by int[GM dz/z^2], which is very easy to integrate.

>>9895887
That's certainly a more intuitive format than the integral method. Know if there would be an easy way to end up with the real temperature gradient, because I'm assuming that it would be significantly harder to introduce. I might just integrate that expression to replace the P_0 constant with P_0 in terms of the initial amount or mass of gas, as it makes more contextual sense.

>>9895996
>That's certainly a more intuitive format than the integral method.
If you transform your integral equation into a differential equation you get [math] \frac{dP(z)}{dz}=-\frac{gM^*}{RT}P(z) [/math].

>>9896032
I wasn't too sure about that, since it was a definite integral and I wasn't sure how that factored in. But I guess all that just comes out of the integration constant anyhow?

>>9896037
>But I guess all that just comes out of the integration constant anyhow?
Yes, as the integral is has your variables and an specific (arbitrary) point as limits, the first one allow you to derive the integral equation and the second one becomes the freedom that is the integration constant.

>>9896043
Well that's good to know, thanks.