☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
9

Live solar eclipse happening right now - Live stream

submitted by Sector7 to Space 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 23:45:00 ago (+9/-0)     (www.youtube.com)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg



27 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] UncleDoug -1 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 06:37:40 ago (+1/-2)

flattards BTFO, lol

@charliebrown_au @VicariousJambi @Doglegwarrior @NoRefunds @BushChuck @Love240 @cb1 @SilentByAssociation

@jewishShillsWranglingRetards

[ - ] NoRefunds 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 07:27:05 ago (+1/-0)

You have SERIOUS FEDS. Flat Earth Derangement Syndrome.

[ - ] deleted 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 15:08:29 ago (+0/-0)

deleted

[ - ] dulcima 2 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 00:25:56 ago (+2/-0)

I wanted to see this but I am in the wrong part of Australia...

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 11:53:19 ago (+1/-0)

Can there be a 'wrong' part of Australia? I've always been wanting to see the bungle bungle, go to Coober Pedy, and perhaps visit NorthSouthWest Australia.

[ - ] dulcima 2 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 12:43:02 ago (+2/-0)

I suppose you could say Melbourne is the wrong part of Australia...

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 14:52:22 ago (+1/-0)

The politics sound as bad as California, and worse in some ways. I cruised around the city on google street view, and it's a pretty attractive and clean place, for a city.

One major difference with California (US) is over 80% of roofs here are asphalt shingles, while I didn't see a single shingle in Melbourne. It's all tile or corrugated metal.

After a bunch of searching and looking around, I found the the roughest neighborhood in Melbourne. Two graffities(!), and down the street is a boarded up window!

https://files.catbox.moe/beubn6.png

[ - ] deleted 4 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 00:09:31 ago (+4/-0)

deleted

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 00:14:57 ago (+2/-1)

There is no flatter explanation. It's all total bullshit. Even the "8 inches per mile squared" formula is a lie.

[ - ] NoRefunds 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 07:26:36 ago (+1/-0)

Hang on, are you actually saying the official nasa curve formula of 8 in per mile squared is bullshit?

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 11:49:05 ago (+1/-0)

It’s not that the number “8” is wrong - it’s that the entire equation is wrong. And it’s got nothing WHATEVER to do with “NASA”.
8 inches per mile squared (or indeed anything per anything squared) would imply that the Earth is shaped like a parabola - and it’s not - it’s spheroid.
That good old 8 inches per mile squared is a VERY rough approximation - used by sailors back in the age of sail to try to estimate the distance to an enemy ship by seeing how far it seemed to have sunk below the horizon.
But the further you go in terms of miles the more wildly incorrect the horizon displacement answer will be.
Up close (within a few miles) it’s not too badly wrong - but once you get out to (say) 100 miles, it’s NOWHERE NEAR right.

https://www.quora.com/When-NASA-tells-us-that-the-Earths-curvature-is-approximately-8-inches-per-mile-squared-what-is-the-true-and-exact-value

Nothing like a flatter implying that NASA thinks the earth is a parabola to bring knowledgeable commentators out of the woodwork. There are a bunch of replies with math, diagrams, and the correct formula for calculating curvature.

[ - ] NoRefunds 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 03:15:38 ago (+0/-0)

There are a bunch of replies with math, diagrams, and the correct formula for calculating curvature.

So tell me the correct distance under the horizon of an object at sea level at 110 miles

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 03:20:24 ago (+0/-0)

I included the link so people interested in that can learn for themselves.

[ - ] NoRefunds 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 08:58:49 ago (+0/-0)

No, I want you to type it, so you can own the answer

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 11:21:16 ago (+0/-0)

I'm failing to have enough interest in the answer.

[ - ] NoRefunds 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 14:11:17 ago (+0/-0)

Yeah because you know there are provable photos of objects at that distance which should be under the horizon, but aren't.

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 18:05:27 ago (+0/-0)

Only if the shape of our planet were a parabola, but it's not. If you'd like, I could link a video that explains why flatters fall for the "8 inches per square mile" fallacy, presents the correct formula, and at the same time mocks flatters in the most reddit-douchy way possible.
Continue thread

[ - ] Ozark 0 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 07:32:43 ago (+0/-0)

It's often misrepresented by faggots getting the order of operations wrong

[ - ] NoRefunds 2 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 07:43:41 ago (+2/-0)

No, it's misrepresented because when doing the calculation, many objects are still visible when they are supposed to be far below the horizon.

[ - ] Ozark -2 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 07:52:05 ago (+0/-2)

Are you taking into consideration the elevation of the observation point?
Are you suggesting that with a sufficient lense you could view China from California?

[ - ] NoRefunds 1 point 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 09:21:14 ago (+1/-0)

Tell me how far below the horizon an object should be at 110 miles at sea level.

Using an x-ray telescope or some other technology that could go thru all the water vapor in the air, seeing china from CA is possible. Nothing exists yet that can do this.

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 10:52:10 ago (+0/-0)

No, that's the flatter "curve formula", not nasa. It's an approximation that works for very short distances, but being a calculation for a parabola, it claims you shouldn't be able to see objects that you should (and do) on a round earth.

Our lives would be very different if we lived on a parabola.

[ - ] deleted 0 points 2 yearsApr 20, 2023 00:17:46 ago (+0/-0)

deleted

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 21, 2023 11:16:39 ago (+1/-0)

Closer to 7.5, but that just moves the wild inaccuracy to the shorter range results. No matter what, a parabola formula will never work for a circle.

[ - ] Sector7 [op] 1 point 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 23:56:54 ago (+1/-0)