![Science It Out](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 48
- 34 609
Science It Out
Poland
Registrace 2. 12. 2019
A channel dedicated to analysing various issues using science!
I have a Discord server now! discord.gg/2dQSkx2VrA
Wersję polską moich filmów umieszczam na kanale Fizyk od czapy: czcams.com/channels/QwuuNQexZvnFHJopYFc3XA.html
I have a Discord server now! discord.gg/2dQSkx2VrA
Wersję polską moich filmów umieszczam na kanale Fizyk od czapy: czcams.com/channels/QwuuNQexZvnFHJopYFc3XA.html
Occultation of Saturn by the Moon, 2024-08-21, sped up 6x (see description)
Today, on August 21st, 2024, at 5:37 am CEST, the Moon occulted Saturn. This is the moment of occultation sped up 6 times. The Moon is completely overexposed, because otherwise Saturn wouldn't have been visible. Some changes in brightness during the clip are due to me adjusting camera settings.
This is a part of a live transmission I had on my Polish channel, which you can find here: czcams.com/video/U4Cb6m9UiM4/video.html
A few additional details:
- The occultation was shot with an IR filter, to try to dim the sky a bit (it was happening after sunrise and the air scatters IR much less than shorter wavelengths, so the sky is significantly darker in IR). The slightly purple coloring is due to how the camera interprets IR.
- Saturn emerged from behind the Moon at 6:33 am CEST, and I was still transmitting then - but the sky was so bright by that point that it washed out Saturn almost completely. You could still kinda sorta see it towards the end if you squinted, but just barely.
- The thumbnail is a composite of two photos taken with different exposures at 5:32, just 5 minutes before the occultation.
Equipment:
- 8" Newtonian telescope, 1000 mm focal length
- Camera: ZWO ASI 585MC
- IR-pass filter (850 nm)
The next occultation of Saturn by the Moon visible in Europe is going to be on January 4th, 2025. After that, the next one is in 2031 (but there will be occultations of other planets in the meantime, like Venus in September 2026).
Visit my Discord! discord.com/invite/2dQSkx2VrA
This is a part of a live transmission I had on my Polish channel, which you can find here: czcams.com/video/U4Cb6m9UiM4/video.html
A few additional details:
- The occultation was shot with an IR filter, to try to dim the sky a bit (it was happening after sunrise and the air scatters IR much less than shorter wavelengths, so the sky is significantly darker in IR). The slightly purple coloring is due to how the camera interprets IR.
- Saturn emerged from behind the Moon at 6:33 am CEST, and I was still transmitting then - but the sky was so bright by that point that it washed out Saturn almost completely. You could still kinda sorta see it towards the end if you squinted, but just barely.
- The thumbnail is a composite of two photos taken with different exposures at 5:32, just 5 minutes before the occultation.
Equipment:
- 8" Newtonian telescope, 1000 mm focal length
- Camera: ZWO ASI 585MC
- IR-pass filter (850 nm)
The next occultation of Saturn by the Moon visible in Europe is going to be on January 4th, 2025. After that, the next one is in 2031 (but there will be occultations of other planets in the meantime, like Venus in September 2026).
Visit my Discord! discord.com/invite/2dQSkx2VrA
zhlédnutí: 102
Video
Channel update - what's up?
zhlédnutí 185Před 2 měsíci
I haven't been posting much recently, so I thought of recording a small update. I'm talking about what you can expect (or not expect) from the channel in the near future, as well as what I've been working on in my spare time recently (I think it's a fairly interesting project 😉 more in the video!). Visit my Discord! discord.com/invite/2dQSkx2VrA
ISS in front of the Moon (x2)
zhlédnutí 1,2KPřed 3 měsíci
There were two ISS transits visible near me recently... so I tried to record them :) You can check when and where a transit is visible here: transit-finder.com Visit my Discord! discord.com/invite/2dQSkx2VrA
Mirages require a steep temperature gradient... or do they?
zhlédnutí 355Před 4 měsíci
Mirages are commonly associated with layers of air with significantly different temperatures. But sometimes they seem to form even when such layers don't seem to be present. How is it possible? Original videos with mirages: czcams.com/video/kAaNhStwhLs/video.html czcams.com/video/ZVN-1r5oUnw/video.html czcams.com/video/r2vaHdVlwEI/video.html Visit my Discord! discord.com/invite/2dQSkx2VrA
We DO NOT see too far
zhlédnutí 803Před 8 měsíci
This is a compilation of some simulations I've done over the course of my debunking of flat Earth for 10 well known observations that are often used as proofs that "we see too far". The simulator I've used, which I have written from scratch myself: github.com/fizyk20/atm-raytracer/ The flat Earth observations are made with a maximum range of up to 3000 km. This causes the flat Earth horizon to ...
60 NM per degree - revisited AGAIN (actual proof of the globe!)
zhlédnutí 2,4KPřed 9 měsíci
One would expect that I've already said what I had to say in the first two videos on the topic, right? Well - this time I have something special for you. I'm going to prove that the spherical shape of the Earth follows logically from 3 fairly benign assumptions, one of which is the 60 NM per degree relation. Enjoy! Visit my Discord! discord.com/invite/2dQSkx2VrA
Motion of the stars as seen from a plane
zhlédnutí 454Před rokem
I made a community post about this yesterday, but I decided to make a proper video today. In short, Taboo Conspiracy was confused about a timelapse of the sky taken during a flight from Zurich to Sao Paulo. Ole D'Haeseleer made a nice debunk and inspired me to try to simulate this in my Coriolis Simulator. Taboo Conspiracy's video: czcams.com/video/KFz4ZZd1zj4/video.html Ole's video: czcams.com...
Sunset azimuth
zhlédnutí 291Před rokem
Today I took a photo of a sunset, together with the direction indicated by a compass. Is such a direction possible on a flat Earth? Join my Discord! discord.gg/2dQSkx2VrA
Speed on a circular orbit in Newton's and Einstein's theories
zhlédnutí 429Před rokem
In this video I'm showing how the same problem can be solved using both Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's general relativity. As you will see, the descriptions in those two theories are completely different, and yet the final result is pretty much the same. Also, you can see here how much more complex Einstein's theory is than Newton's. Hopefully the math won't bore you to death! 😅 Link...
Sun in the zenith!
zhlédnutí 650Před rokem
I couldn't re-take the video, so you get me speaking in Polish - sorry! 😅 I hope the subtitles are good enough. I was going to travel from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek on the 4th of December 2022. I knew I would cross the latitude where the Sun is in the zenith on that day - so I checked where exactly that would happen and what time the solar noon would be, and then I planned my trip so that ...
Can it be upwards refraction instead of curvature?
zhlédnutí 489Před rokem
A flat Earther, @7TheRock7 , has been appearing under my videos, claiming that refraction bends light upwards in the atmosphere as a matter of general principle, and that warmer air in the valleys is less dense than cooler air on mountaintops. He also claims that this upwards refraction is responsible for the effects we call "curvature". Well, as it happens, I have made an observation that dire...
Missing curvature? Well, let's see.
zhlédnutí 3,2KPřed rokem
Referenced videos: czcams.com/video/yF2J0jdHSaw/video.html czcams.com/video/oIkatWw3-vI/video.html "Second Marko B" refers to this: czcams.com/video/kSHVotO-SZY/video.html Flatzoid's community post: czcams.com/users/postUgkxC0znJB4VJMz2HqRCMbTOWIHdUU0edwF7 My raytracer: github.com/fizyk20/atm-raytracer Description: czcams.com/video/8umzFtJUvHw/video.html Maths behind the raytracer: czcams.com/v...
A differential geometric approach to refraction
zhlédnutí 183Před rokem
WARNING! Math overload 😉 A slightly experimental format in which I did some math and wanted to share the results. If that's too much math for you, don't worry, I'll be back with more digestible content in the future. I just know there are some math nerds among my audience, so I went with the assumption that it might be interesting to them 😅 I still tried to explain some of the things I did in s...
Atmospheric Raytracer pt. 1 - An overview
zhlédnutí 316Před 2 lety
Atmospheric Raytracer pt. 1 - An overview
I can throw a ball infinitely high! (at least according to flat Earth logic)
zhlédnutí 194Před 2 lety
I can throw a ball infinitely high! (at least according to flat Earth logic)
How measuring the elevation angles works on a globe
zhlédnutí 951Před 2 lety
How measuring the elevation angles works on a globe
"Impossible" lunar eclipse compared to a Blender model
zhlédnutí 510Před 2 lety
"Impossible" lunar eclipse compared to a Blender model
60 nautical miles per degree, revisited
zhlédnutí 685Před 2 lety
60 nautical miles per degree, revisited
Anchorage - Mexico City - an "impossible" flight on a globe? Answering Brandon's questions
zhlédnutí 547Před 2 lety
Anchorage - Mexico City - an "impossible" flight on a globe? Answering Brandon's questions
"Flat" Coriolis vs actual Coriolis, improved
zhlédnutí 488Před 2 lety
"Flat" Coriolis vs actual Coriolis, improved
What are fictitious forces? Centrifugal and Coriolis
zhlédnutí 661Před 2 lety
What are fictitious forces? Centrifugal and Coriolis
"Wales to Northern Ireland destroys the globe" - does it, though?
zhlédnutí 351Před 2 lety
"Wales to Northern Ireland destroys the globe" - does it, though?
Is the shape of Earth's surface determined by the 1° per 60 NM relation?
zhlédnutí 1,3KPřed 2 lety
Is the shape of Earth's surface determined by the 1° per 60 NM relation?
Celestial Navigation Challenge - A Summary
zhlédnutí 187Před 2 lety
Celestial Navigation Challenge - A Summary
It going to be a CGI volcano, Hollywood pantomime or it was a fog machine on a harness 😂😂😂
So cool!!!!!
I dunno... looks flat to me :P
Did you catch the other side?
Kind of. I was watching and streaming while Saturn was reappearing, but by that time the sky was so bright that it wasn't clearly visible. It was just a spot that was a teeny tiny bit brighter than the surrounding noise, barely noticeable, and even then it was hard to be sure if you're not imagining it.
Odd how we can predict these things in advance...
Right? Some will say that this is because "the sky is periodic", but somehow nobody has shown how to compute the actual time of anything from this periodicity... I wonder why.
Very nice!
Nice. Now if it wasnt a full moon we could have seen saturn through it of course.
It wasn't a full moon! Unfortunately, the dark part was where Saturn was emerging. I was hoping to capture how it is emerging from nowhere, but that didn't quite pan out because of how bright the sky was. If the weather cooperates in January (which, unfortunately, is rather unlikely), the occultation will start on the dark side then, which might be fun to see (and it will be during the night, so no bright sky!).
I'm impressed. I had thought about ray tracing in a "if I could really be bothered to invest any time I would think about doing that" sort of way but to incorporate the geographic data takes it to the next level. Atmospheric conditions are a problem, and I must admit I should know this already but, can the size of the mirage band be used to improve estimates of the refractive index? Is it just too few pixels to mean any estimate actually has a worse error?
Thank you for the kind words! 🙂 "can the size of the mirage band be used to improve estimates of the refractive index? Is it just too few pixels to mean any estimate actually has a worse error?" Kind of. One could try to find a temperature profile that reproduces the right size of the mirage, but there are likely many different profiles that would fit, and I don't know of any direct method of doing that, only trial and error - and, as you can probably imagine, that's not very efficient.
The purpose of elevation angle measurements to get a GP kind of gives it away dumbo. You are trying to ascertain your position on the ground, hence the use of ANGLE measurements ONLY possible from the flat plane, the very ground you are standing on. Jesus, people who think this method works off a globe or any curved surface are honestly beyond all help. Either extremely stupid or extremely handled!
My father was a co-pilot/navigator in B-47s He used a bubble sextant to shoot stats at night. No horizon needed dumbfuck
what if there is a refractive medium (e.g. a firmament) between the earth and stars, such that the apparent zenith angle and the actual zenith angle are different?
Then the shapes computed in this video would be wrong. But even in such a case the 60 NM per degree still implies a spherical shape of the Earth. I explained it in more detail here: czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html
I am not sure that the point is here except the simulation used as a reference doesn't fit the real images. At that point the analysis ends as the simulator can't recreate real conditions.
"the simulation used as a reference doesn't fit the real images" Doesn't it? I'd say it fits quite well.
@@scienceitout It doesn't. The narrator points it out at about 5:22. He makes a note that this may be due to refraction. The narrator says, "He sees less than he was suppose to see". This is true if it is assumed that the simulation is a precise and accurate recreation. At about 5:22, the photographed water line is above the simulated waterline. He continues, "If I knew the proper atmospheric conditions..." He demonstrated that he cannot calibrate the device he is using as a reference.
@@johnfitzgerald8879 Why "the narrator"? Usually it is reasonable to assume that the owner of the channel is the person in the video, especially so with small channels like mine. And that assumption would have been perfectly correct. "The narrator" is me, you can just write "you". Regarding the rest, I still do not understand the issue you have with the video. Yes, there is a slight discrepancy when standard refraction is assumed. But we know that refraction is often different than standard in reality, especially over water. So it is reasonable to expect that it was caused by nonstandard conditions. I would have been able to check if someone performed the required measurements during the observation, but unfortunately no-one did. Also, there is no "device" to be "calibrated" here.
His videos are not available. Guess he knows you got him.
He removed them or made them private a while ago. I don't have copies, unfortunately. It's possible he realized he was mistaken - not necessarily thanks to my video, but IIRC people have mentioned it to him, so who knows 😉
Wouldn't it be better to say that you're line of sight doesn't bend but light bends into your line of sight? Saying your line of sight bends brings up another argument for them to use. No straight lines on a globe. Which is false.
Kind of depends on how you define line of sight. I implicitly took it to mean the path of light arriving at the eye, which is one option. You could also define it to be the direction in which you are looking, which as I understand would be your preferred definition, and that would be fine, too. I disagree with the second part of your comment, though. Even if we go with my definition and the lines of sight are bent, it doesn't follow that there are no straight lines on a globe. It just means those particular lines aren't straight. If someone tries to claim that there are no straight lines on a globe because of that, that's their problem, not mine.
@@scienceitout thanks for the response.. and that does make sense. Both parts of yours. Simply following spherical geometry, of course there are straight lines on a sphere. But understanding spherical geometry is asking too much from a flat earther. Just joking. I wish they would fight for better understanding things. Thanks for the video as well.
The earth is flat; space doesn't exist... hell is real... that's where the heat underground comes from.... God is real.
Thanks for this profession of faith, but what does it have to do with the video?
Idk how you think this debunks flat earth, I just wanted to stop by and laugh at you for thinking so 😂
@@globe_atheist81 Sounds like a you problem to me 🤷
The sky is local. The farthest thing ever seen is Mt Everest from 125 miles. Elevation sets our circle of sight. The calculation is square root of the height times 1.23 We live in a virtual realm, and the map (coordinate system) is stereographic. The plane of Earth is fixed & immovable. There is no curvature, no gravity, no dome, and no ice wall... Earth has 4 corners and 2 polar rotations. All the luminaries in the sky are being rendered locally to each individual observer's circle of sight (eyes, cameras, etc.)... The only working map and model of REALITY - Stereographic Map by Awake Souls.
"The farthest thing ever seen is Mt Everest from 125 miles." You should probably double check that. "All the luminaries in the sky are being rendered locally to each individual observer's circle of sight (eyes, cameras, etc.)..." The fun thing is that even if that were true (and I'm not aware of any good reason to believe so), it would _still_ be possible to show that the surface of the Earth must be spherical based on the relations used by celestial navigation. In fact, that's what I showed in this video: czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html
do you use that map to navigate?
No SKOY MYALS total failure GLOBETARDS!
This is NOT Celestial Navigation. If you are interested in learning about CN, do yourself a favor and find a better video or resource on this topic.
"This is NOT Celestial Navigation." I can agree on this one! This is just a theoretical description of the very first step of CN, ie. making measurements. The main part of CN is turning those measurements into a position fix - something that no flat earther seems to be able to do, coincidentally!
The funny part is that flerfs have no idea how celestial navigation even works. The only flerfs who dared to navigate on their own got rescued by the coastguards after a few hours.
According to 10thman, he came up with this ‘sextants prove a flat earth’ garbage at the beginning of 2020. You feckless simpletons have had 4 years to demonstrate a sight reduction and you still can’t do it. You jerkoffs cannot show us a flat earth nautical almanac. Because you cannot agree upon whether there is a dome covering your idiot flat earth or if the sky is planar and endless you can’t even describe how you would determine the GP of a celestial object. Feckless clown.
I enjoy how globers just make things up 😊 This video is a great example of just that. This guy doesn't even know what a tangent is.
OK, I'll bite - what is a tangent according to you? I kind of wonder what kind of a twisted misunderstanding you guys managed to come up with for this one.
🦗🦗🦗
the GP is not even on the ground LOL, this guy doesn't even know that you need a GP perpendicular to your position when taking an elevation angle
If you stopped listening to flat earthers who have as little idea about all of this as you do, you wouldn't be writing such silly statements. Here's where the GP would be on my diagrams, and where the _relevant_ right angles are: imgur.com/IreWJyK
@@scienceitout LOL, I AM a flat earther because earth is FLAT. Don't tell me what to do or not to do clown. You need the equatorial plane in the middle of your ball now? Looks like you need flat earth measurements after al to assume your ball to draw at least 2 tangents on that has nothing to do with taken an elevation angle on a flat plane, which what is ACTUALLY done all the time. You still don't know what an elevation angle is, let alone take one to a celestial body.
@@scienceitout LOL, I AM a flat earther because earth is FLAT. Don't tell me what to do or not to do ball believing zealot. You need the equatorial plane in the middle of your ball now? Looks like you need flat earth measurements after al to assume your ball to draw at least 2 tangents on that has nothing to do with taken an elevation angle on a flat plane, which what is ACTUALLY done all the time. You still don't know what an elevation angle is, let alone take one to a celestial body.
@@sunbirdism No equatorial plane in that diagram, try again. Also, you're still bickering about angles and completely forgetting the _purpose_ of celestial navigation, which is to compute a _position_ from the elevation measurements. To my knowledge, still no flat earther ever showed being able to do that. And you're also continuing to ignore my requests to show your ability in this regard. I wonder why?
@@scienceitout Meanwhile in reality elevation angles are taken from a flat surface from observer position to the GP, which you deny. Keep denying reality and tell me how you got one GP in "space" and another GP on a curved surface. LOL
So you DON'T point your sextant to the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL PLANE of reference, NOT in REFERENCE and NOT parallell to the surface you are (NOT?) navigating. And you DON'T actually esthablish an elevation angle in relation to the apparant position of the celestial body. And then you take your height above sea LEVEL, which is above a sea which is NOT LEVEL to (NOT?) correct for your height above sea LEVEL, which is not actually sea LEVEL. Ok, I think I got it!
"So you DON'T point your sextant to the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL PLANE of reference" No. You establish a horizontal plane of reference by subtracting the dip angle from the measurement. If there was a possibility of measuring directly from horizontal, the dip correction wouldn't be necessary. (That is the case with bubble sextants and theodolites, which can also be used for celestial navigation.) "And you DON'T actually esthablish an elevation angle in relation to the apparant position of the celestial body." That's actually exactly what you do. Only the apparent position is different from the true position - hence the need to correct for refraction. "And then you take your height above sea LEVEL, which is above a sea which is NOT LEVEL" It is level. It's just not flat. "to (NOT?) correct for your height above sea LEVEL" The dip correction is based on the observer height, but it is not a correction for height, it's a correction for the horizon dip. "which is not actually sea LEVEL" Again, just because it's not flat, doesn't mean it's not level.
@@scienceitout You sure it isn't FLAT? Cause it's measured FLAT. Looks like your GP is not on the ground forming a right angle to take an elevation angle. Denying your vertical to the GP? I could of swear the sextant was being pointed at the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL plane of reference, which is parallel to the surface of that which you are navigating. Dip correction being there for correcting for your HEIGHT above that exact PLANE. Think you got some stuff mixed up in your globe delusion about a sextant.
@@sunbirdism "You sure it isn't FLAT? Cause it's measured FLAT." I'm sure, and no, it's not measured flat. I actually measured it. It was curved: czcams.com/video/V-dl9-xu2kE/video.html There are other reasons to believe it's not flat, too, for example: czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html czcams.com/video/dU7JU3rUM9o/video.html czcams.com/video/omeSZThqqaI/video.html "Looks like your GP is not on the ground forming a right angle to take an elevation angle." Nobody is interested in that right angle. You're fighting a strawman. "I could of swear the sextant was being pointed at the horizon to esthablish a HORIZONTAL plane of reference" Well, you would still be wrong. "Think you got some stuff mixed up in your globe delusion about a sextant." Not at all. I think if you actually tried to use some sextant measurements to get a position fix, you would quickly find that you _can't_ do that if you assume a flat Earth. The measurements itself could be done on either a flat Earth or a globe (although there shouldn't be a dip correction on a flat Earth...), but the process of obtaining a fix _requires_ a globe. Want me to post some sextant measurements I've taken myself? I'll post them, and you tell me where I was when I took them, how about that?
@@scienceitout Nope, you need a flat plane to take an elevation angle to polaris. Your delusion is based off flat earth measurements. The fact that earth is measured and navigated exactly in this way, i.e. flat, is absolutely proof of earth IS flat. No way around this. And height is always in respect to sea-LEVEL, which is a plane of reference to which you set the sextant by pointing it to the horizon for calibration. You correct for eye-height above this plane (dip-correction), that is above sea-LEVEL. Looks like you wanna create a complete and utter nonsense story about how elevation angles above a FLAT plane are taken.
@@sunbirdism "Nope, you need a flat plane to take an elevation angle to polaris" First, why are you getting so hung up about Polaris? It's just a star. You can take an elevation angle of any star, not just Polaris. Sure, it's close to the north celestial pole, but it's not exactly _at_ the pole (so all this stuff Nathan is going about that you can get your latitude by just measuring the elevation of Polaris is not _quite_ correct). Second, no, no flat plane is needed for that. That's just your strawman. "The fact that earth is measured and navigated exactly in this way, i.e. flat, is absolutely proof of earth IS flat." Except it's not measured flat nor navigated flat. That's just your denial speaking. "And height is always in respect to sea-LEVEL, which is a plane of reference" Sea level is a geoid. It's defined by expressing the deviations from an ellipsoid using spherical harmonics (quite an interesting mathematical topic, BTW). "to which you set the sextant by pointing it to the horizon for calibration." All wrong. "You correct for eye-height above this plane (dip-correction)" It's based on the eye height, but it's a correction for the horizon dip. So, how about my small challenge? Wanna try figuring out where I was when I took some actual sextant measurements? I obtained a fix from those measurements. Show me that you know at least as much about celestial navigation that you can do the same.
You haven't proven a globe. You've assumed it and injected refraction to make it work like it is on a flat earth, which, of course, it is. IMAGINE SEEING MOUNT CANIGOU FROM 170 MILES AWAY BECAUSE ITS REFRACTED! LOL
"You haven't proven a globe." No, I haven't. At least not in this video. It wasn't its goal. The goal of this video was to show that the FE claim of "a sextant can't work on a globe" is false. It can, it does, and this is how it does. "IMAGINE SEEING MOUNT CANIGOU FROM 170 MILES AWAY BECAUSE ITS REFRACTED! LOL" Yes, refraction actually plays a part in all long distance observations - in the ones of Mount Canigou, too. You should probably see my other video: czcams.com/video/omeSZThqqaI/video.html
@scienceitout fair enough. I didn't realize this video was only intended to be hypothetical . Your refraction video is nice, but dude, refraction will never let you see things that are behind a geometric hill, which is what you have to claim the earths alleged convexity is. You just rightly illustrated that light refracts down. Could this, air quality and perspective be the reason we only see things at the distance we do and not because of curvature which no one can scientifically prove?
@@fepatriot I wouldn't say "hypothetical", because this _is_ how this stuff works, regardless of any denial. It just wasn't intended to _prove_ that it is so.
@scienceitout well, I see you're making a lot of allegations without substantiate scientific validation such as actually proving the earths alleged convextiy scientifically, which is the most fundamental requirement in proving the globe.
@@fepatriot "I see you're making a lot of allegations without substantiate scientific validation such as actually proving the earths alleged convextiy scientifically" Uhm... czcams.com/video/V-dl9-xu2kE/video.html czcams.com/video/dU7JU3rUM9o/video.html czcams.com/video/7z8J3OYOcr8/video.html czcams.com/video/omeSZThqqaI/video.html czcams.com/video/BwP8rmBdKRY/video.html Just a few of my videos, each of which contains pretty strong evidence for the globe and against flat Earth. One of them I even called a proof - which is just a tiny bit clickbait-ish, as like any proof, it requires making some assumptions, but those assumptions are acceptable to most flat earthers, too.
I'm here because I saw one of your vids on Nathan Oakleys' Flat Earth Debates YT channel. As a anti flat earther you need flat earth. You are either intellectually dishonest or ignorant sir. You can't debunk flat earth because it is true.
"As a anti flat earther you need flat earth." No, I really, really don't. It has been a source of some fun for a while, but became a bit too repetitive for me. "You can't debunk flat earth because it is true." It really isn't. And if you look around my channel, I've shown quite a lot of evidence that it isn't.
HORIZON is HORIZONtal.
In a way, yes. On a globe, too.
It us down until you reach the horizon. On the other side it is up, across the hidden height, until you reach the sun or the stars behind it.
@Nathan Oakley 1980 sent me .. he reviewed your video but i have an issue with a bent line of sight in orthographic view . Did you have someone positioned at the side of your head and then tell you that your line of sight is bent while your looking up at the alleged star. I really dont believe thats possible in reality .i know your making stuff up as you go along to fit your narnia globe in .
"Did you have someone positioned at the side of your head and then tell you that your line of sight is bent while your looking up at the alleged star. I really dont believe thats possible in reality" Look a bit deeper into optics. The general principle is that in a non-uniform medium, light bends in the direction of increasing index of refraction. For the air, index of refraction generally increases with increasing density, and the density of air is higher near the ground than higher up. All of this together means that light in the atmosphere generally bends down. This is corroborated by long distance observations, observations of rising and setting stars, as well as flattening and chromatic aberration of rising and setting Moon and Sun.
Ironic that your papa-flerf is actually the one making stuff up all the time. Ask him when was the last time he used celestial navigation in the open sea.
NathanOakley1980 sent me
You have embarrassed yourself with this non sense. You're clueless about the most basic geometry - NathanOakley1980 just reviewed this video. You should check it out if you care to learn how cel nav actually works
Watching now, actually (although delayed by about 40 minutes). I'm loving what Nathan said there: "refraction is derived from the radius, it's got nothing to do with light at all". Beautiful!
@@scienceitout Thank you for responding. Have you realized how wrong you were about the whole cel nav methodology and basic geometry? All horizontals are parallel (with the plane of the horizon). All zeniths (of the GP's) are parallel. Horizontal and vertical are perpendicular. To describe vertical (elevation) a horizontal plane of reference is required. For sextant to work and give you 90 degree to gp's Earth must be Flat (horizontally extended plane) Please let me know if anything I just said here is not clear to understand.
@@Vlad_on_Zero_Degrees "All horizontals are parallel (with the plane of the horizon)." Not at all. "All zeniths (of the GP's) are parallel." Not at all, either. "Horizontal and vertical are perpendicular." Yes (at least as long as we are talking about horizontal and vertical at the same point). "To describe vertical (elevation) a horizontal plane of reference is required." Elevation is not the same as the vertical direction, and no horizontal plane of reference is required. Surfaces of constant elevation can have any shape. In the case of the Earth, that shape is a geoid. "For sextant to work and give you 90 degree to gp's Earth must be Flat (horizontally extended plane)" Not at all. The sextant only measures an angle between two directions. If what you are saying were true, it wouldn't be possible to use a sextant while standing on a hill, because the surface under your feet is not flat, then. But it is possible. You can still get an apparent elevation over the horizon in the middle of a hilly area. The problem there is figuring out what the dip of the horizon is, because the surface at the horizon isn't necessarily at zero elevation, but if you can do that, you can do celestial navigation perfectly well even on an obviously non-flat surface.
@@scienceitout "not at all" is all you got??...denying the most basic laws of geometry? You can't be helped. ..."sextant measures an angle" you say?? Define "angle" - game over, thanks for playing - go back to grade 1 and learn basic Euclidian geometry
@@Vlad_on_Zero_Degrees "Not at all" is all I'm going to say. Either you know what the globe claim is, in which case there's no point in me explaining it to you, or you don't, in which case the shortcomings in your education are so severe that I see no point in continuing the conversation. As for what an angle is - you may have noticed that I explicitly only talk about angles between straight lines (tangents to the curves), precisely because this was targeted at people such as yourself, who deny that angles between curves are a thing. But they _are_ a thing, and I could have just as well talked about the angle between the light paths I've drawn. An angle between two curves is defined to be the angle between tangents to those curves at the point of intersection, so it would have been an equivalent phrasing. And I can guarantee that no mathematician or physicist would have any issue with a mention of an angle between two curves. "learn basic Euclidian geometry" Good advice. You should heed it. And I would also recommend going a bit beyond the basics. There's a lot of maths and science that, by the looks of it, you haven't even touched. Now, there's no shame in that, but it's good to have awareness of the limits of your own knowledge, which you don't seem to have.
@Nathanoakley1980 has responded to this video. Enjoy❤
@Nathan Oakley sent me here. He's reviewing your video live now. You have a fundamental problem with comprehending what an angle is. 😂
I respectfully disagree 😉
@scienceitout A sextant is an angle measuring tool. It measures elevation angles of stars for celestial navigation. An elevation angle is the imaginary line of sight to the star and the horizontal plane the observer is standing on. Apologizing for no curvature doesn't help you.
@@TB-xx8vj "A sextant is an angle measuring tool." Yes. "It measures elevation angles of stars for celestial navigation." That, too, but not only that. It can be used for measuring all sorts of angles. For example, the angular separation between the Moon and a star, which used to be a way of determining time before accurate marine clocks were a thing. "An elevation angle is the imaginary line of sight to the star and the horizontal plane the observer is standing on." It's the angle between the imaginary line of sight to the star and an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the observer's eye. No standing on the plane is involved.
@@scienceitout Sea level is not imaginary. You conceded that you need height above sea level for dip correction. That's the horizontal baseline used for the elevation angle measurement.
@@TB-xx8vj Sea level is a geoid. Height above sea level is defined relative to the geoid. And the horizontal "baseline" is just an imaginary plane that is 90° to plumb, which has nothing to do with the surface or its shape.
Thanks for the video! @NathanOakley1980 reviewed this video today to expose errors. Please check it out! FED #2137
ADMIRALTY MANUAL OF NAVIGATION 1914. Arts. 52-55. Page 62 It shows the same curved light paths.
@@jabberwock9248 Bowditch, too. msi.nga.mil/api/publications/download?key=16693975/SFH00000/Bowditch_Vol_1_LoRes.pdf&type=view chapter 16, especially figures 1604, 1605c (p. 310-311 in the PDF).
Thanks for the video! @NathanOakley1980 sent me and we'd love to have you present this on his debate channel live!
Unlikely to happen, but thanks for the heads up!
@@scienceitout I know it's embarrassing for a flat earther to point out how wrong you are. You don't even know what a tangent is.
@@realitybear5574 Embarrassing? Maybe it would be if the "corrections" were actually correct. But as it is, they are more like hilarious misunderstandings ("refraction has nothing to do with light" 🤭), although the hilarity gets old fairly quickly (I'm still not quite over the one about refraction, though!).
@@realitybear5574 Nobody knows what happens when a flerf points out someone else's mistake, since flerfs enjoy being always wrong.
Did you use the atmospheric data of the day/place to put the refraction? Or did you use standard refraction?
Good question. I'd have to double check, but I think I used standard refraction for most of the simulations. There were a few with non-standard refraction, which was based on the data for the day and place, but IIRC I've tried to annotate those - so there is one labelled "slightly non-standard refraction" and one "with zero temperature gradient", and those might be the only ones where refraction was non-standard.
Wouldn't going at speeds near the speed of light cause relativistic aberration?
I should clarify, even if we assume Newton's model with light "corpuscules" (photons) traveling, err, in a manner consistent with Newtonian mechanics, there should be considerable aberration at speeds comparable to the speed of light. (We can measure aberration at orbital speeds, anyway.) Special Relativity would just make it more pronounced when coming very close to the speed of light.
@@TruthNerds Well, yes. You could say that for now I'm assuming the speed of light to be infinite. Implementing aberration wouldn't be too hard, but I'm not sure that's a good idea (I definitely won't be going for 100% realism anyway, proper relativistic treatment would be too much of a hassle). It's something to be considered later, I guess.
@@scienceitoutYOU are assuming the speed of light to be infinite and yet "SCIENCE" of which you claim to know, dictates that the speed of light is 299,799,458 m/s (in a vacuum which does not naturally exist ergo one must assume you mean in space- which is fake)! 😊
@@AdamCook138 You are aware that I wrote that in the context of talking about a video game, right? And that a video game can be as realistic or as unrealistic as its creator wants it to be?
@NathanOakley1980 👍 check this out!
Not sure if that works as a highlight. If you want him to see this, you should probably contact him directly. He probably won't like it very much, though.
@@scienceitout I was referring to you checking out the flat earth debate @NathanOakley1980! You should come to the show and present this information, I believe it would make for a good debate. All are welcome!
@@DanielSamaniego-of5xl Oh, I'm aware of Nathan. Not a big fan, to be completely honest. However, if he wants to chat about this, he's free to reach out - I kind of stopped doing this whole flat Earth thing for the time being, but I'm still open to conversations about it if someone is interested. I'm not going to actively look for opportunities to debate this topic, though.
@@scienceitout Word up ☺👍 I'll reach out to Nathan and see if he will review your video! If he does he will tell his audience to show you some algorithmic love and will link your video! If you in return make a response video to his, please be kind and send your audience to Nathan to show him so algorithmic love! I personally think your refracted zenith goes against what the heliocentric model claims! For they say its required to be straight in order to measure the angle 📐. I'm curious do you have a citation to back this refracted zenith claim? I'd love to dig into your claim, if you could point me in the direction you got this information that would be epic!
@@DanielSamaniego-of5xl "I'll reach out to Nathan and see if he will review your video! If he does he will tell his audience to show you some algorithmic love and will link your video! If you in return make a response video to his, please be kind and send your audience to Nathan to show him so algorithmic love!" Fair enough 👍 "I personally think your refracted zenith goes against what the heliocentric model claims!" I haven't talked about the zenith at all in the video, though. What is refracted is the images of the star and of the horizon (or, more precisely, light coming from them). How the light coming from a star is refracted, depends on the star's elevation above horizontal. For stars in the zenith, refraction is negligible and is assumed to just be 0. It is roughly 34' (0.57°) at the horizon, and less than 6' (0.1°) for stars higher than 9° above the horizon (thenauticalalmanac.com/TNARegular/2024_Nautical_Almanac.pdf p. 281-282). "I'm curious do you have a citation to back this refracted zenith claim?" If you mean what I'm saying about refraction (as above, I haven't really mentioned the zenith), you can find a pretty much identical description in Bowditch's "American Practical Navigator": msi.nga.mil/api/publications/download?key=16693975/SFH00000/Bowditch_Vol_1_LoRes.pdf&type=view chapter 16, especially figures 1604, 1605c (p. 310-311 in the PDF).
Interesting. Hope you enjoy the tinkering and hope it evolves into a nice project. But i enjoyed your past videos and hope they will stay available as resources.
Thanks! I don't intend to delete anything. It's not like I hate what I did and want to distance myself from it - more like, I want to spend my time more productively in the future. Although, it's possible that at some point if I do publish something, it might be on a different platform, if CZcams progresses too much in its enshittification (which is in quite an advanced stage already).
I know what you mean about the debunking thing. Getting deja vu about looking up my own video in which "I already answered that" because I've looked it up so many times is a bit silly. I have the same feeling about the climate change questions on Quora. "Here are links to my most recent five answers on this subject, one of which contains links to a dozen of my earlier answers on this subject, one of which contains links to several of my earlier answers on this subject, one of which contains links to *WHAT AM I DOING WITH MY LIFE?!?"*
Does this mean you know that man made climate change is a hoax, as opposed to man made environmental impact? Earh is flat, observed flat and measured flat. 😊
Are you using an existing game engine as your base to build upon or are you building it from scratch and incorporating libraries where necessary?
I'm not using an engine yet. I may try to use one if/when I decide that not using one is too much effort 😅 But generally, as I understand it, engines come with their own limitations and they could make it harder to implement some features I'll need, so I'll try to get as far as I can on my own, first (although that may depend on the engine). Not to mention that learning to properly use one is an undertaking in its own right 😅
@@scienceitout That makes sense. There are only a few game engines in Rust that seem to be actively being developed and they definitely aren't as fully featured as ones in other languages like Unreal or Godot.
@@scienceitout Using procedural generation is a good idea when you want this many stars, it makes culling a lot easier. I don't know if you are familiar with Sebastian Lague's channel, it might offer some ideas and inspiration for future developments. [edit: corrected misspelling of Sebasitan's name]
@@michaeldamolsen Thanks for the tip! Will take a look 🙂
Wish you luck and fun. Don’t forget to implement gravity and the correct perspective function (not flerfspective) 😊
Always been the best debunk channel.
Thanks, really nice of you to say! 😊
Hahahaha! I saw an old vid of his speaking of bent lines of sight. There are non so blind as those who refuse to see. I came here because of Nathan Oakley Flat Earth Debates.
6:39 "I actually lied a bit". Having heard of you through Nathan Oakley Flat Earth Debates, at first I thought you were ignorant but now you have stated your dishonesty. 😮
@@AdamCook138 If that fragment, in that context, is an admission of dishonesty to you, then I really don't know what to say.
What's up? Nothing. It all came down again ;-D
What is down? The acceleration. What is up? The equal and opposite force.
@@ReinoGoo If that's down and up, then what is askance?
Wishing you all the best. I hope you’ll continue to assist other debunkers as things come up like the last video with you, Roohif and Ole.
@@acefox1 If there's an opportunity for me to assist, I probably will - after all, it would be a shame if all the effort I put into the raytracer went to waste, for example 😁
@@scienceitout Would you still be open to answering private inquire about flat earth claims?
@@thegoblin957 Sure! Feel free to ask in the comments or on Discord (I'm on a few popular servers, other than my own).
Very cool. What I'd like to know is how many times can you fly through the centre of the galaxy before you collide with a star 🤔. Agree with you about FE. Good luck with this. Yep, see you around! 👍👍👍
a question that sounds closely related to the question of mean free path length (as applied to entire stars) 🙂
I am balancing my checkbook this week, so I got that going on.
If you want to balance anything, you'll need a flat earth for that.
Nifty AF no Q !
There are a lot of indie developers which have one or two teammembers. You can do it! 😊
I'm mostly concerned that I'll lose interest at some point and the project will just get stuck in a limbo. That's what usually happens to my projects, unfortunately... 😅
@@scienceitout I want to encourage you just the same! Who knows how far you can take it, and it may end up a success, or it may end up as an enjoyable hobby. No regrets! 🙂
So your not using curved earth when navigating on top of the surface of earth you need horizontal 🤡
Great shots! Wat beyond anything I can do, for sure. Oh, but... just wait... someone, some flerf, will claim that second one is just a bird flying between the photographer and a "close" moon above their glorious Flerftopia. 😂 #gottalietoflerf
Good job editing the balloon out! Kidding of course
Batman 🎉