Why the fuck is there so much controversy about this?
Uh, about what?
>>7678035
Perhaps OP doesn't understand that the moon is lit by sunlight.
Generally speaking the Earth-Moon system is where the bad stuff happens that makes people mad.
>>7678035
Apparently a large number of people think it's sh00ped, beyond the regular level of tinfoilers. Obviously it's real, was just wondering if anybody had heard or read some supposed flaw to make people all up in arms about it
>>7678032
Compared to literally everything else, there isn't.
The reason you think there's so much controversy about it is that you hang out on godawful idiot-filled sites like 4chan, especially the cesspit of conspiritards, trolls, stoners, highschoolers, freshman engineers desperate for validation, freshman physicists desperate for validation, and memesters that is /sci/, where the kinds of people who will argue about NASA faking Apollo / the Round Earth / the secret orbital cannon responsible for 9/11 hang out.
>>7678032
So the DSCOVR satellite orbits the Earth from beyond the moon?
>>7678065
You mean that particular image? Yeah, I mean, I would have guessed it was shooped if you didn't tell me it was real. But since you mentioned it, it's clearly the dark side of the moon and the shadows line up so I have no reason to doubt you.
Maybe people are too used to computer graphics which exaggerate the effect of angle on a linear light source and so believe that the moon is "too flat looking" or something.
>>7678032
Was about to post this in the thread on /b/, but it 404'd. I put a lot of work into disproving the retarded video so I'll just leave it here in the hope that someone knows what I'm referencing:
>>653571080
Using the numbers given in the video:
distance to jupiter~500 million miles
distance to pluto~50 million miles
diameter of jupiter~90 thousand miles
diameter of pluto~1500 miles
And the mathematical formula for angular diameter (developed independently from astronomy, easily derivable from trigonometry)
theta=diameter/distance
so the angular diameter of jupiter is 90000/500000000=.00018
and for pluto it's 1500/50000000=.00003
We can also use the rayleigh criterion (a resolution formula) to determine the smallest angular diameter able to be resolved for an 8.2 inch telescope in the visible wavelength.
theta=1.22*lambda/diameter=1.22*(500*10^-9)/.21=.000003.
This number is 10% of the diameter of pluto but 2% of Jupiter's diameter. This is why we see so much more "detail" in Jupiter. Maybe this guy should have spent his money on an intro astrophysics course instead of buying that 1000 dollar telescope.
>>7678066
classique
>>7678032
the moon is a pretty big guy
>>7678071
I'm pretty sure it's orbiting the sun, in Earth's L1 point. It's primary mission is to look for active regions on the sun, that's probably why the camera facing the earth is such shit because it's never used.
>>7678065
>>7678066
>>7678071
>>7678077
>>7678080
Those who think it looks fake are not wrong.
The moon is supposed to look very bright, almost white when reflecting radiation from the sun. Yet the picture shows it as a grayish color. Also there are contradictions to this image compared to the lunar landings in 1969 - 1975. The earth would take up a significant amount of the lunar sky instead of a blue ball in the moon landing photos if OPs photo is legit.
Rule of thumb is that NASA is full of shit from the beginning.
>>7678032
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7678032
NASA has a certain level of PR it has to keep up, they will adjest the photo to satisfy what people are expecting to see, all members of the general public would question the real image of a massive pure white object in front of the earth, were used to grey, they shoop it grey
>>7678091
Time to go and learn some facts about optics.
>>7678099
youre proving my point.
>>7678102
No I'm not.
>>7678103
compare the cameras used on apollo vs the one used to take that shot in that satellite photo then work out scale for objects like moutains or terrain when people use a 70mm camera. Im not going to spoonfeed you because you wont see it for yourself. Ill wait....
>>7678091
>color varies in images depending on the camera and nasa acknowledges this wow!
>2012 was shot with a fish eye lens #conspiracy
>>7678120
Nah, you do it.
>>7678099
The camera zooms out when going closer to that wood thing and zooms in when going further from it.
>>7678091
Couldn't resist on this one.
Seriously, we have repeatable proofs that we have, indeed, been up there. (google because fuck you)
https://www.google.com/#q=lunar+retroreflector
https://www.google.com/#q=how+does+satellite+orbit+work
https://www.google.com/#q=how+does+gravity+work
Seriously, look for ANYTHING besides just what proves YOU right for once.
On another, similar note... were the MASSIVE FREAKING ROCKETS from multiple nations (who occasionally HATE each other) too subtle?
According to Yuri Gagarin, Alan Shepard, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, you sir are a moron. Course, knowing you faggots you'll probably just pull some "Durr hurr mah conspir"AAAAAAAAGGGHHTHERIDENEVERENDS.
Okay, I'm done.
>>7678197
I like 70's and early 80's film better. Modern digital sources are far too clean and crisp, looks like garbage.
Analog to digital transfers are the best it gets. As long as it's lossless, or not encoded with something awful like mpeg(2).
>>7678091
>Yet the picture shows it as a grayish color.
Because it's contrasted by the brighter Earth. The moon is reasonably dark with an albedo of 0.1.
>>7678091
>the earth is fake
where the fuck are we then?
>>7678210
This. 1975 Earth = best Earth.
>>7678223
Indeed. Here's a closeup.
(It has a person in the way, but oh well. Even the 70's had its photobombs)
>>7678229
60's, rather.
>>7678091
kek
>>7678197
>https://www.google.com/#q=how+does+gravity+work
>>7678197
>>7678229
Are there any rover pictures of the surface of Earth from the 70s?
>>7678091
>>7678091
>use instagram to take picture of a bright fucking light bulb
>use shitty filters
FUCK THE BULB IS NOW DARK WHAT SORCERY WHAT THE FUCK PHYSICS IS BROKEN
>>7678042
underrated
>>7678222
On planet Water.
>>7678210
This man is very correct.
Very correct.
>>7678285
>Are there any rover pictures of the surface of Earth from the 70s?
here ya go
I'll tell you when you're older.
>>7678120
Here's a simulated setup in Unity.
The camera is 1 degree FOV instead of 0.61 that the actual EPIC camera have because unity doesn't allow less than 1 degree FOV.
Also the units are set to the metric values.
Looks like a pretty good match in size overlap for me.
But I guess game engines comes with hidden code to hide the NASA fakery.
>>7678091
Because changes in cloud cover and multiple cameras/lenses/filters not all taking the exact same photo are impossible, right?
>>7678102
If the point is that you are an idiot, then yes.
>>7678460
nice
>>7678178
There's no zooming in that picture.
>>7678197
The only complaint that I have with your picture is that the focal length on the 2012 one is slightly different thus making it not suitable for comparison.
>NASA photos are shopped/filtered to try to make the image look cooler
Isn't NASA supposed to be dedicated to science? Shouldn't they show it how we would see it in real life?
The mars photos for example, why the fuck do they shop it to make mars look more red?
>>7678621
Not the images they release as part of public relations. If the images look too boring then the public questions the need for funding.
You can get the unaltered data for science if you want to.
>>7678621
They need to "shop" the images to make them look how they would look in real life. Which is not what the science is about anyway.
>>7678065
Why is it obviously real? Did you feel the need to throw that adjective out to ingratiate yourself?
Do you know that this is what the earth and moon look like under appropriate natural and photographic conditions --- do you know this "obviously", because you've checked for yourself, or do you know it because some scientists told you so?
If it took a team of scientists many millions of dollars of grant money and many months of planning and execution to get a near-earth probe into outer space --- all so that they could /actually check/ that this is what the earth and the moon look like relative to each other under such-and-such light and photographic conditions --- if they had to go through all that to actually check their result, then doesn't calling it "obvious" trivialize their hard work?
Could such a thing be possible?
>>7678644
No, it actually validates all of their hard work, as that is precisely what proves this to be obvious.
>>7678355
That's a weird rock. It must be erosion, there's no intelligent life on Earth of course, that's just tinfoil right?
>'Murica
so what is the consensus of yall on this pic?
Seems pretty real to me and unshopped to me
r earth ~6300 km
r moon ~1700 km
ratio moon to earth should be ~ 3,8 : 1
ofc they are not the same depth so in this picture the moon should be a little bigger maybe ratio is about ~3,5.
the shadow implies this was pic is of a lunar eclipse tho.
If any1 can find where this eclipse happened we could check if it's legit or not.
>>7678032
Because of flat-earth retards.
>>7678781
*solar eclipse, sorry
>>7678676
Moving picture = movie, you know, because it moves. Otherwise I would've said "that still image".
There isn't.
>>7678807
alright ok i thought it was a drop shadow, oops.
Is OPs pic supposed to be made with a EPIC camera with 0,6 FOV?
doesn't that mean there should be a visual difference between 1 FOV in the simulation and 0,6 FOV in the pic?
or the change negligible bc the motive is centered?
>>7678791
This. There seems to be this subculture who feel threatened by math and science because of their inability to focus on it long enough to understand it, but they want attention in the field, so they rehash a crackpot theory that cas been consistantly disproven, repeatedly, by countless independent studies, fiddle with random numbers until they have something that could sound semi-plausible to someone with no formal science education, and label it a conspiracy.
>>7678263
>pulls the moon and keeps the oceans from flying off
>weak force to allow the oceans affected by the moons gravitational force and mass of 1.2%
>allows birds to fly and leaves to be taken by a gust of wind.
>>7678460
wow. you kinda are proving that pictures are easily simulated.
>>7678621
science is a meme in agencies pushing for funding.
the military is a big example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
I hope you dont think NASA and its affiliates are purely a peoples organization similar to boy scouts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
>>7678861
>who feel threatened by math and science
nah. Tbh family, you can prove the earth is not round by observations and testing, which what science is based on, not meme philosophy of taking assumptions from shaky theories like gravity that will likely be rewritten in our lifetime.
>>7679154
Sure; it would be quite easy to create extremely realistic CGI images of the Earth and the Moon with current technology. They're basically just textured spheres, after all.
But the argument that that image must be faked because the Earth and Moon are the wrong relative size remains absurd.
>>7679181
you bring up a good point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp1TxJhHpZQ
>>7678102
Either stop trolling or get the fuck out of /sci/
This isn't your playground
This is footage from the iss with correction of lens.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzNj7LXQXg
>>7679248
You suck at shitposting.
>>7679235
This is why you shouldn't do indoors astronomy.
>>7679163
>Shaky theories like gravity
>Shaky theory
>Gravity
>twf everything in the observable universe obeys the phenomenon defined as gravity
>>7678066
Also math with ducks
>>7678494
an continents grow and shrink over a span of a few years.
>>7680087
>What are angles?
>What are lenses?
>>7680090
the picture clearly shows mexico blew up 3 times as big in 2012 compared to 2002.
also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzNj7LXQXg
>>7680103
Omg, someone altered footage to reveal the truth! There's no way that obscure youtube video could possibly be wrong!
Seriously, it's like you're trying to make my point for me.
>>7680103
>the picture clearly shows mexico blew up 3 times as big in 2012 compared to 2002.
2012 is fisheye
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuzNj7LXQXg
That's not a fisheye lens though, you can tell because the "corrected" version has distorted atmosphere that is larger on the sides while the original has equal atmosphere all over. Fucking flat earth shitposter.
>>7679235
I love the Google image search astronomy. That's the most silly thing I've seen all day.
>>7678032
What spacecraft took that picture?
>>7678032
>>7680781
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
>>7678091
hahaha... Get a load of this retard.
Because people assume the source of light is Earth.
>>7678065
who took the pic then?
>>7679464
Sorry in advance.
Gravity.... a space-time function of mass.
Total matter in universe = 4.6%
Experiments to detect gravity waves >30
Detection of gravity waves = 0
There WILL be a modification of gravity in our lifetime, i have to agree with that anon.
Additionaly, the experiment to determine the amount our space-time is stretching seems to be coming up with nothing., this COULD imply the universe boundary between matter/energy is generating space-time as it expands and stretching, more like an elastic band (sheet would be a better analogy i guess), quite interesting no? An elastic universe? Hmm?
>>7683810
>There WILL be a modification of gravity in our lifetime, i have to agree with that anon.
That's not how science works. Newtonian Gravity still works just as well now as it did three hundred years ago. We aren't someday going to discover that apples fall upwards, like they seem to think.
>>7678032
Probably because they expect to see something like this, since we see the moon as bright white in the sky.
Obviously this doesn't take into account how highly reflective the earth is because of water and clouds, and how by contrast the moon is dull looking.
>>7684971
They'd also expect the mare from the near side. Few people know how different the far side looks.
>>7684983
>expect the mare from the near side
>>7678221
Now I'm curious what it would look like if the Moon were as reflective as the earth. Suspect you'd be able to read at night even under a crescent moon.
>>7684991
Low-quality people don't even understand that the moon is tidally locked.
>>7683810
Todays theories of gravity is like a plot device to prove the earth is round. but again, gravity is purely hypothetical since you cant measure it.
Electromagnetism tho........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM
>>7684077
you dont belong here. science has always been wrong and changed or atleast covers it up.
heres an example:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full
>>7679235
That he did.
You just brought full retard.
>>7678320
Its white and gold
>>7687137
This. Always this.
>>7686896
but again, gravity is purely hypothetical since you cant measure it.
>Wat are newtons?
Why can't conspiritards stick to >>>/x/ ?
OP, that picture is shopped.
This is what it looks like unshopped.
>>7687191
>>7687195
No it isn't.
>>7678091
The sun's light is approaching the earth from the left side. Look at how bright that side is in comparison to the other.
>>7687195
Pentagram is apparent in both.
>>7678099
that couple photo bombing the gif
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>7678102
He posted a picture which convincingly disproved your thesis; showing how the colours and light reflected by an object vary considerably by such thing as focus, zoom, external light conditions, etc and in no way are indicative of some manufactured conspiracy. You sir, are an idiot.
>>7678091
>that fucking picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g
>>7678091
No, retard. The moon actually has a very low albedo. The only reason it looks bright is because it's the only close thing in the night sky, and space is fucking dark.
Is the moon really an egg?
>>7678091
What kind of equipment was used to take the 2012 photograph?
>>7678032
That green line around the moon though hahaha
This is my first time seeing this image, but what I can assume is that it's the moon. Would I be right in saying we haven't seen what is on the dark side of the moon? Maybe that's why its causing controversy
>>7688938
The moon was moving at the image was captured, so it's in a slightly different position as each of the colour filters was used.
>>7688970
>what is on the dark side of the moon?
>>7678066
Still better than le reddit
>>7678222
>>7688970
We can't see the dark side of the moon because it's dark and outshun by the bright side.
We've had pictures of the far side since Luna 3 in 1959 and there have been plenty of observations since.
>>7678102
>youre proving my point
No, he's proving you wrong.
>>7678320
What was happening at the time they were distracting people with this. That was a crazy shilling event, was it the TPP?
>>7688970
>we haven't seen what is on the dark side of the moon?
Just pointing out that the phrase "dark side of the moon" doesn't literally mean "dark", it just means "far side".
Also spacecraft have photographed it since the 60s.
>>7678102
Silence, you retarded nigger jew
>>7679402
wait the one below looks flatish how is that possible
>>7689937
He warped the image with standard video editing software.
Unfortunately he doesn't give the math he's used to "correct" the curvature that may be imparted by a wide angle lens.
Also in much of that footage it's obvious that the surface curves away from the viewer towards the horizon.
>>7680103
That video is so fucking stupid. And it's still obviously curved.
>>7678066
>The reason you think there's so much controversy about it is that you hang out on godawful idiot-filled sites like 4chan
I think it's mainly Youtube
>>7678032
Because normies don't realise that Earth and all space objects " float " in space.
They picture space as a screen and everything on this screen are 2D.
They think Sun is solid too.
>>7680103
>the picture clearly shows mexico blew up 3 times as big in 2012 compared to 2002.
There's no way you can tell that from an image that small.
>"wow it looks so fake"
>"because I often see this event personally and can tell the difference between a fabrication and reality"
These people are idiots
>>7678032
That's a picture from an animation.
>far side of the moon
this is a location
>dark side of the moon
this is a concept and/or a pink floyd album
>>7691125
I see you on the dark side of the moon
>>7678102
No, he's unequivocally proving you wrong. I hope you're being stupid on purpose but I doubt it
The only reason someone would think it is fake is this
also absolute shit resolution
>>7691123
No, it's not.
>>7691614
>what is the camera used on the satellite?
four megapixel CCD camera with a telescope
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20EPIC%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf
>and have you seen the same lens to determine the scale on other things?
LOL, it's simple optics. It has nothing to do with focal length by the way. This is simply how two objects look when the camera is much farther away from them than they are from each other. In this case the camera is a million miles from earth while the moon is only about a quarter of that distance.
>>7691577
That's just an artifact from taking monochrome frames one at a time. Sort of like when the newspaper doesn't align the colors correctly.
>>7691577
A world-controlling organization has fingers in every pie including air travel, ice wall defense, education, and responsible for faking every part of astronomy and most physics. An anonymous poster on the internet blows the whole operation by identifying a bad shop. Thank you, anonymous poster.
>>7678621
With photos in space, oftentimes certain areas of the image are completely washed out with light while others are too dark. With stuff like that I can understand them shopping it to look better. You're right that they sometimes go too far though.
>>7678091
1975 looks so damn good.
>>7687906
grow up
>>7691651
>A world-controlling organization has fingers in every pie including air travel, ice wall defense, education, and responsible for faking every part of astronomy
They'd also have to fake all of astronomical history as well
>>7678088
for dubs
>>7682109
Thanks Obama
>>7688029
That looks like something from Spore
>>7689018
>>7689023
>>7688029
Why is there green light over that one city at 0:30?
>>7678032
>earth
>having a huge as gauge
i'm here for the job interview
>>7692103
you do know that scientists were payed off to keep their mouth shut on the matter of cigarette smoking causing cancer? in fact the industry payed for fake experts to conjure data. What makes you think that type of shit doesn't seep into other aspects of science and engineering, like the oil industry and space?
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/eurpub/19/1/2.full.pdf
Is this an undercover climate change thread?
>>7692688
>scientists were payed off to keep their mouth shut
And this disproves all of science?
>>7692709
>if a then b
yes and no. yes on public relations, no on independent research.
dont you think that if a witness or juror was found to be payed off it contaminates the entire trial? Imagine that was your trial and your innocence on the line.
mainstream science is whitewashed.
>>7692709
>oil industry
>fluoride
>fracking
>aspartame
>carcinogenic additives in food
>the pharmaceutical industry
do you know what all of these have in common?
peer reviewed studies on the academic board towards public relations.
how many psychiatric medicines have been recalled or taken out?
how many foods recalled for concerns on production?
how fracking causes an issue in water and was largely ignored?
how about when flouride was pushed by the FDA ignoring the research against it?
http://www.newsweek.com/us-government-recommends-lower-level-fluoride-water-325760
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-fluoride-in-private-wells-causing-an-iq-decline1/
If you can comprehend that its easy to get away with fooling or paying off the public relations on health concerns, then its very easy to fool people on cosmology if all the information comes from one place. Nobody gives a shit about space anyway besides whats in hollywood. And the beauty of mathematics, you can make anything work on paper and then when it comes to practicality, just omit theoretical jargon for simplicity.
>>7692724
>dont you think that if a witness or juror was found to be payed off it contaminates the entire trial?
Except what you're doing is more like saying that because we know bribing jurors happened at some point in the past, everyone tried by a jury is innocent. You haven't even shown that a single astronomer was "payed off" to say the earth was round, an idiotic concept.
>>7692709
i agree with this anon>>7692751
>very easy to fool people on cosmology if all the information comes from one place.
because air bubbles can be found in space walk videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ
It makes perfect sense that they would try to hide us from the truth that this earth is really one massive terrarium with a magnetic center and an ice all with a plateau surrounding it. the sun and moon move like a circuit superconductor.
>>7692822
>You're not critiquing science itself. You're critiquing corruption under this capitalist
I'm not against the practice of science. But somewhere along the line denial of well established evidence became a part of it. In all fields. NASA is nothing more than public relations on cosmology.
>>7692874
>But somewhere along the line denial of well established evidence became a part of it
Such as?
>>7692874
Could you please tell me the point of this big lie? If the earth is flat like you say why don't they want us to know?
>>7692882
> If the earth is flat like you say why don't they want us to know?
professors put out of the job and funding taken out of all universities specializing in astrophysics.
Theoretical astrophysics thrown out.
books rewritten.
revolts against the education system that pushed Darwinism and big bang theories.
anyone can claim power to being the son of god and no one would argue thus jeopardizing the power struggle of private banks over first world nations.
actual wars against the 1%.
holy wars and unintentional destabilizing of countries with valuable interests that do not favor western countries.
materialism, the driving force of commerce in first world nations, ends.
the power of the Vatican church heavily reconstructed.
the pharmaceutical industry profiting in anti-depressants plummet.
breakdown of society over whose religion is the correct one.
>>7692974
If this massive conspiracy you speak of actually existed.
Why would they start saying the earth was round in the first place, when they could just build the same shit they have now around the earth being flat?
Ofcourse if that was the case there would still be conspiritards like yourself who would argue that the earth was actually round/concave or whatever the trend would be.
This "I'm so special I know the truth unlike these other sheeple" attitude has already become tiring.
>>7692983
>>7692987
>If this massive conspiracy you speak of actually existed.
what do you mean if?
>Why would they start saying the earth was round in the first place
the earth being round is based on assumptions with the only proof was by observing boats going below the horizon and mistakenly acknowledging it as curvature. They had no knowledge of how mirages work, light refraction, atmosphere, and perspective points.
wanna see what really happens?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCx5ob04ZY
>>7693026
>the earth being round is based on assumptions
Sure explains why they went with the "assumptions" instead of simply abusing the power that the government already had back then.
"I'm so super duper special because I know the truth! Wake up sheeple! Because I am totally right and think critically! That's why I list a conspiratard youtube video as a legitimate source!"
>>7692974
Wow bro, just wow. Well you keep on fighting the good fight then ok?
And to think all this time I thought the earth being round just meant it was round, turns out it's how the 1% stay on top. Truly you have opened my eyes!!!!!!!
>>7693026
The video shows fata morgan mirage. So are you suggesting that this occurs every time someone sees a ship going under the horizon? Because fata morgana only occurs under certain weather conditions while you will see the ship going under the horizon any day. Not to mention that this still shows the ship going under the horizon because the mirage only reflects the part of the ship that's actually visible. But it doesn't explain why less and less of the ship is visible in the first place.
Plus this is only one piece of evidence that the Earth is curved. There are many more, such as the Bedford level experiment, the fact that the Earth's shadow on the moon is always curved regardless of its orientation, Eratosthenes's experiment, the fact that you can see farther the higher you go, the fact that the Sun is always shining on some part of the world but does not change size or move around in a circle during the day or disappear in the middle of the sky at night, images from space, and many more...
>>7693062
Bit of advice bud.
The best way to defeat someone who is blatantly denying reality isn't to provide them with evidence, they won't care.
The more amusing and more effective way to use evidence as a basis to ridicule them.
>>7693091
Bro I'm not even sure what you're arguing, do you think the church is right or wrong?
>>7693062
>>7693079
>The video shows fata morgan mirage.
> So are you suggesting that this occurs every time someone sees a ship going under the horizon?
>Because fata morgana only occurs under certain weather conditions while you will see the ship going under the horizon any day.
>Plus this is only one piece of evidence that the Earth is curved.
Mirages happens on large expanse flat surfaces.
"As is well known, atmospheric ducting is the explanation for certain optical mirages, and in particular the arctic illusion called "fata morgana" where distant ocean or surface ice, which is ESSENTIALLY FLAT, appears to the viewer in the form of vertical columns and spires, or "castles in the air.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_%28mirage%29
>Earth is flat
Explain seasons.
>>7678091
what the fuck is all that white shit around the earth, why does it keep changing? make up your mind nasa!
>>7693124
No, mirages occur on large "essentially flat" surfaces that follow the curve of the earth. What "essentially flat" refers to is that the surface is smooth and level. But this has nothing to do with whether there is a global curvature. It's like claiming the earth is flat because wherever you use a bubble level it's shows the ground is level. Now you are just playing language games instead of presenting an argument.
>>7693217
stop posting.
I proved to you that the earth is not round, or pearshaped, or oblate, or eggs shaped.
heres another proof that you will lose arguing.
Abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface.They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain
Water always finds a level and never bulges due to "gravity".
>>7693336
Your proof is the use of the word flat in a Wikipedia article and the word gravity in quotes......I'm not sure how to respond to that other than laughter.
>>7693336
LOL, the only thing you've proved is what a completely delusional nutjob you are. You can't even respond coherently, you just spam videos and links and ignore when they get destroyed.
>Abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface.They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
Again, you're just playing language games. saying that a piece of land is "flat" does not imply anything about global curvature.
>Water always finds a level and never bulges due to "gravity".
Water finds a level locally where the curvature is not noticeable, but over a distance of miles the bulge is apparent to the naked eye. Only a delusional fool would not be able to see this.
>>7692751
>picture
>flat, nonrotating earth
You realize in physics you have to use simplified models, right?
>>7695504
Don't forget the fact they think people give a shit. Worlds just gonna keep on turning, and they're just going to stay in the same place.
>>7692751
>>oil industry
>>fluoride
>>fracking
>>aspartame
>>carcinogenic additives in food
>>the pharmaceutical industry
All of these industries have huge consumer and industrial markets. With that profitability comes the ability to lobby, pay PR, and influence dishonest or unqualified scientists.
How much profit could there be in space travel? Especially when only a fraction of a penny of each tax dollar goes to NASA?
I remember when that happened. The photo was taken by the spacecraft that orbits the sun. That's why everything's so bright.
>>7693336
Can you do me a favor and finish reading the wiki article THAT YOU POSTED and still tell me the earth is flat.
"The process of seafloor spreading helps to explain the concept of continental drift in the theory of plate tectonics."
"The flat appearance of mature abyssal plains results from the blanketing of this originally uneven surface of oceanic crust by fine-grained sediments, mainly clay and silt."
"Continental drift"
All mentioned in your article which contradicts your statement.
#Gondwana
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain
>Weaver; J. Thomson; P. M. Hunter (1987). >Geology and Geochemistry of Abyssal Plains >(PDF). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific >Publications. p. x. ISBN 0-632-01744-9.
>http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/31/1/local/front-matter.pdf
>abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface
>They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth.
Ops photo is fake.
>>7678091
You can see the graphics increase as they get better cg. I've never seen a more fake bullshit. But where exactly do we live then?
>>7697520
the earth is a terrarium with an ice barrier and ice plateau surrounding it. There is a barrier in the sky. the bottom is full of magma. Current speculations of the core comes to uproven theories and computer simulations that do not reflect reality, such as the dynamo earth core theory.
TIMEZONES work on a flat earth with the sun as a spotlight LIKE working around a circuit LIKE a superconductor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npn29xn36mM [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXHWJ4iUlZs [Embed]
>>7697520
electromagnatism can be explained how we dont see the suns light at all times as well as vanishing point perspective. also an explanation of the Aurora Borealis effect in the center of the terrarium.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY7hsXxbb0Q
>>Can you do me a favor and finish reading the wiki article THAT YOU POSTED and still tell me the earth is flat.
"The process of seafloor spreading helps to explain the concept of continental drift in the theory of plate tectonics."
"The flat appearance of mature abyssal plains results from the blanketing of this originally uneven surface of oceanic crust by fine-grained sediments, mainly clay and silt."
"Continental drift"
All mentioned in your article which contradicts your statement.
#Gondwana
>>7697005
>>7697706
Thank you for agreeing with me that earth is not flat and saying tectonics is a theory.
Unless you have some other retarded definition of theory, then it means tectonic theory can't be disproven.
Also that article you posted is a load of shit and has not factual basis.
>>7678091
Top kek, epic troll right?
That's the same as comparing modern digital photos to film from the 90's and then black and white pics.
>Come on Scientists, what colour are we really?
>what are exposure settings
>what are filters
>how does orbiting work
You'd have to be mentally retarded to consider any of that as some sort of proof
>>7687137
There's something wrong with your retinas anon.
It's blue and gold(ish).
>>7689022
I'm glad my brain isn't retarded. I haven't once seen it as white and gold even for a second.
>>7697759
What if under the given lighting conditions and flash, seeing it "correctly" is actually the retarded way? What if it's an indication that your color constancy is poor and more prone to making poor assumptions?
Better start really paying attention to other contexts.
>>7697725
Your argument is the equivalent of the star wars prequels being canon to the original. Plate Tectonic theory is not canon with round earth theory.
>>7697769
Show me a pic where that is the case and I'll give you the argument. Otherwise my brain is superior.
>>7697848
Try to disprove it
Protip: you can't
>>7697546
>the earth is a terrarium
This is clearly an insane religious cult.
>>7697998
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0510/0510090.pdf
its practically non canon.
>>7698114
http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/
particularly the explanation of Libyan glass and mainstream science explanation.
>>7698114
I am a terrarium.
>>7692456
It seems that its not a city, but fishing boats in Thailand that use green light to attract squid.
>>7698127
You know the abstract you posted still suggest the earth is round..... can you please read your links before using it as evidence of flat earth
>>7698577
I forgot to mention your paper also mentions he unifies tectonic theory and expansion with a decompression. So I still don't see how you can disprove plate tectonics
>>7698133
>There can be only one reason why the shuttle is reinforced at its nose and front wing edges: it must hit something hard at some point on its way up. And looking at the numerous footage from balloons being sent into the stratosphere, we can see only black, which must mean this material is both hard and transparent.
>The only hard and transparent materials we have is glass or plastic, and glass is usually a lot more brittle than plastic, which it would need to be for the shuttle to break through.
Jesus Fucking Christ. I don't even know what to say to this.
>>7698133
>http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/
> Lord Steven Christ
That's the hollow earth guy. He used to spam his videos on /x/.
>>7698696
You don't say anything you just keel over laughing.
>>7698696
Wow. So who got the fossil fuel or silica and processed it to put in space? Literally the craziest thing I have ever heard. And I go to /x/ to have a laugh. This shit is side splitting gold
>>7698696
Source for this lunacy? Wasn't on this thread
>>7698696
>>7698769
>>7699248
>>7699261
>>7699276
kek. Whats stopping space from sucking the atmosphere out of the earth then? Gravity is too weak and allows the moons gravity to affect water?
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/11/26/star-trek-invisible-shield-found-thousands-miles-above-earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuYjzNsm7GU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG6eM6RPnlQ
>>7699655
>Whats stopping space from sucking the atmosphere out of the earth then? Gravity is too weak and allows the moons gravity to affect water?
Gravity is clearly strong enough to hold the atmosphere in. What makes you think otherwise?
And last I checked, the tides are a movement of a few metres at absolute most. The moon isn't exactly pulling the oceans away into the sky.
>http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/11/26/star-trek-invisible-shield-found-thousands-miles-above-earth
Uh, that's taking about interactions inside the Van Allen belts. That's way above the upper edge of the atmosphere.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuYjzNsm7GU
Thunderstorms? I don't see how that's relevant.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG6eM6RPnlQ
What the fuck?
>>7678197
Direct link to NASA HD Streaming camera live (at bottom of image)
http://www.space.com/25797-nasa-hd-earth-from-space-video-webcasts.html
>>7699655
What makes (Eur)Asian women so uniquely appealing / cute? I'd like to know if this perception is relatively conserved across all populations.
I'm sure research has been done to evaluate this, or something similar. Unfortunately I doubt they'd include relatively destroyed races, like native North Americans.
>>7701434
looks flat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwimocU0IIc
>>7701456
>http://www.space.com/25797-nasa-hd-earth-from-space-video-webcasts.html
>looks flat
The ISS camera is pointed straight down from around 200 miles up in that link What would you expect?
>>7701443
Neoteny
>>7692974
>revolts against the education system that pushed Darwinism and big bang theories.
So it is an extreme form of creationism.
>>7687530
this looks creepy as fuck
>>7678032
It looks too *neat* and clean.
A lot of other astronomical objects tend to be Messier.
>>7689561
Yes, TPP.
I heard about it days after the fact on the radio and told my relatives not to show it to me because I was positive it's some pysops and the image will fuck your mind over.
Cue them shoving their phones at me for the rest of the week.
That's why I don't talk to my relatives anymore.
> Slight color shifts are visible around the lunar edge, an artifact of the Moon's motion through the field caused by combining the camera's separate exposures taken in quick succession through different color filters.
>>7703198
> astronomical objects tend to be Messier.
>>7693351
/thread
>>7692777
Are you fucking retarded? Thats obviously the compressed air that they shoot out of thier suits to move around in space.
>>7703252
Hadn't seen that large version, thanks.
