Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

The reason why it's here is because of NASA crap track record and their ex-employees all of this is easy to find. They always use NASA issue as a way to push the flat earth.

If you talk to a flat earther, that's not insane, about the facts while also acknowledging that NASA has had several problems in the past they generally listen to what you have to say instead of dismissing the info you give them outright. Most of the time.

Do you have examples of this?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

That may go against flat earth, but geocentrism has the entire sky not going around a dome but around the sphere of the earth.

I still think there maybe issues with nasa. Rockets have like 1 in 50 chance of exploding, you wouldn't want to do 100s of manned flights knowing any lethal event would likely result in severe budget restriction.

There's also the issue that has been brought up that things like submarines have large maintenance work crew, and everyone in them knows the emergency procedure. The ISS has like a handful of people, when asked they don't seem to know emergency procedure, and the structure is immense yet doesn't seem to suffer from maintenance despite being a far more hostile environment than the sea with a far smaller crew.

 

[Ornlu]

the structure is immense yet doesn't seem to suffer from maintenance despite being a far more hostile environment than the sea with a far smaller crew.

Eh, the ocean is hostile as fuck.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

Aim for the Edges *"My Hero" plays in the background*

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Eh, the ocean is hostile as fuck.

yes but not as hostile as a radioactive vacuum with extreme temperature differences.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Watch: Flat Earther Arrested Following Bizarre Visit to Elementary School | Coast to Coast AM

A Flat Earth enthusiast found himself in hot water with authorities in South Carolina after he visited an elementary school playground with the intention of teaching the children the 'true' shape of the planet.

www.coasttocoastam.com

A Flat Earth enthusiast found himself in hot water with authorities in South Carolina after he visited an elementary school playground with the intention of teaching the children the 'true' shape of the planet. The bizarre incident, which was broadcast live on YouTube, reportedly occurred last Thursday afternoon when Nathan Thompson, a prominent advocate for the controversial conspiracy theory, walked up to a fence at the Hollis Academy in the city of Greenville and began shouting at the kids about the Flat Earth.

Specifically, Thompson told the tots that "space is fake" and went on to declare that "they're gonna teach you that you live on a spinning ball. That doesn't make it true. It's not real. The floor is not moving a thousand miles an hour." The Flat Earther also attempted to distribute some flyers detailing his research into the conspiracy theory, but his intended audience was quickly ushered away by a concerned teacher who told Thompson that they could not accept his pamphlets.

School officials subsequently reported the incident to police and Thompson was later arrested for public disorderly conduct. A spokesperson for the school told a local newspaper that "we're concerned anytime someone is reaching across the fence and we don't know what they're up to. It scares children. It frightens the teachers. It's not OK." For his part, the Flat Earther argued that his actions were well within the law. "I was walking my dog on a public sidewalk," Thompson said, "and used my First Amendment rights to tell those kids that large bodies of water do not curve."

 

[Rentahamster]

That may go against flat earth, but geocentrism has the entire sky not going around a dome but around the sphere of the earth.

What? I'm not sure what your point is here.

I still think there maybe issues with nasa. Rockets have like 1 in 50 chance of exploding,

*citation needed*

The ISS has like a handful of people, when asked they don't seem to know emergency procedure

*citation needed*

and the structure is immense yet doesn't seem to suffer from maintenance despite being a far more hostile environment than the sea with a far smaller crew.

Far more hostile environment? The vacuum of space is zero atmospheres. The inside of the ISS is 1 atmosphere. That's a pressure differential of 1 atmosphere.

The inside of a submarine is pressurized at one atmosphere. At 450 meters (we don't know what the maximum depth is because it's classified), a Los Angeles class military submarine experiences a pressure of 44 atmospheres on its hull. That's a pressure differential of 43 atmospheres.

43 atmospheres is an order of magnitude more than 1. Submarines need to be very tough.

yes but not as hostile as a radioactive vacuum with extreme temperature differences.

The ISS is still protected by the Earth's magnetosphere. It's not that high up.

Does The Earth's Magnetic Field Go Past The ISS?

How far out does the Earth's magnetic field extend? Is the ISS inside it? How well protected is the ISS? Is the magnetic field weaker out there?

www.forbes.com

All this really means that the ISS is in a much safer region of space than it could be - not that it’s totally safe. Our magnetic field is not a perfect blocker of high energy particles, and so things like gamma rays, cosmic rays, and other damaging radiation can still appear in higher quantities than they would if the astronauts were still safely on the ground. Our atmosphere is pretty good at blocking a lot of these high energy particles, so on the ground you’d never get exposed to them. But the ISS is above the atmosphere, and doesn’t have this extra layer of shielding, so there are radiation monitors on the space station to keep track of how much of a radiation dose they’re getting. If a solar flare is on its way, the astronauts usually have a few days’ warning, and can take shelter in more strongly shielded section of the ISS if they need to. (Not all solar storm are aimed in their direction, and not all storms are strong enough to require this precaution.)


So yes, the ISS is firmly embedded in the Earth’s magnetosphere, making it -- for a space based outpost -- a relatively safe haven for our astronauts.

As for maintenance, astronauts do lots of maintenance.

International Space Station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Crews fly expeditions of several months' duration, providing approximately 160 person-hours per week of labour with a crew of 6. However, a considerable amount of crew time is taken up by station maintenance.[9][31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance

 

[LordKasual]

They also don't give a fuck about how "real" their work looks to their own employees. Do you think this sudden interest in Flat Earth belief just came out of thin air the last few years for no reason?

No, not for no reason. It comes out for the same reason every crazy conspiracy theory comes out.

a few nutcases (or geniuses) with conviction, and a horde of impressionable, ignorant followers who are more willing to confide in the words of some fringe internet personalities who make them feel important, instead of doing what ever other real scholar does -- absorb the multiple millennia of information and make an ACTUAL educated guess.

I don't think very many flat earthers are insane. I just think it's an absolute pity that such inquisitive thinking could be wasted on such fucking nonsense.

There's so much to learn about the ACTUAL universe. I understand that piecing together some kind of Flat Earth mythology is FUN and provides a sense of discovery, but that's what books and videogames are for.

And i'd be perfectly okay with your unwillingness to accept reality...but when morons start inhibiting the growth of the REST of humanity, it really gets aggravating.

There's also the issue that has been brought up that things like submarines have large maintenance work crew, and everyone in them knows the emergency procedure. The ISS has like a handful of people, when asked they don't seem to know emergency procedure, and the structure is immense yet doesn't seem to suffer from maintenance despite being a far more hostile environment than the sea with a far smaller crew.

See? Shit like this.

How the hell would a crew member of the ISS NOT know emergency protocol? Where did you read this nonsense?

What makes you think there's no such thing as maintenance on the ISS? What do you think spacewalks are for, you think they're just out in the pure vacuum for shits and giggles?

where do you people read this stuff, and why do none of you have the capacity to fact check this shit? ITS SO EASY

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

What? I'm not sure what your point is here.

geoncentrism holds that the earth is the center of the universe, iirc, according to relativity it is equally viable with heliocentrism.

*citation needed*

With 1 failure in 19 missions, the Falcon 9's 95% success rate is fairly typical for the space business. Among its competitors sending cargo to the space station, the Antares rocket has a success rate of 80%, and the Soyuz 2-1a 86%. The Atlas V that will stand in for the Antares on the next Orbital Sciences cargo flight to the space station has a 98% success rate, near the top of the list, after 54 launches. (Also near the top is Russia's Soyuz-U, which carries crew to the station, and has a 97% success rate after 771 launches.)

The Odds Of The Next Rocket Failure Are Not Small

Sunday’s SpaceX rocket explosion shows that every launch is still an experiment, even after half a century of spaceflight.

www.buzzfeednews.com

*citation needed*

That's gonna be difficult as google heavily censors flat earth on youtube, and it was there I saw it. You search and its tons of debunking videos and any actual flat earth content is buried deep.

I can describe what the video was about. They comment that even chefs in submarines know the emergency procedures, than go on to show an interview with someone in the ISS, when asked about emergency procedure, they say 'gee I don't know guess there must be one' or something to that effect.

Far more hostile environment? The vacuum of space is zero atmospheres. The inside of the ISS is 1 atmosphere. That's a pressure differential of 1 atmosphere.

Even though there's the magnetic field protection there is increased radiation at higher altitudes, there's also constant temperature changes from going from earth's shadow to earth's lit side.

As for the vacuum, I don't know but strong vacuums seem pretty strong they can lift tens of tons or collapse even steel containers.



Here I assume it didn't collapse at -20psi nor -25psi, but at -27psi it imploded.

As for maintenance, astronauts do lots of maintenance.

International Space Station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance

Yes they do, but the claim is that submarine maintenance is even more agressive and takes dozens working around the clock. I don't know if the claim is bogus though, perhaps it is.

How the hell would a crew member of the ISS NOT know emergency protocol? Where did you read this nonsense?

I can describe what the video was about. They comment that even chefs in submarines know the emergency procedures, then go on to show an interview with someone in the ISS, when asked about emergency procedure, they say 'gee I don't know guess there must be one' or something to that effect.

Finding the actual video is tough with google censorship over at youtube.

What makes you think there's no such thing as maintenance on the ISS? What do you think spacewalks are for, you think they're just out in the pure vacuum for shits and giggles?

The claim I've heard is that it takes around the clock maintenance on a submarine with a large crew doing the maintenance, while the ISS has far less maintenance. Not sure if it is true that submarines have such extensive maintenance needs.

where do you people read this stuff, and why do none of you have the capacity to fact check this shit? ITS SO EASY

IT's not heard but seen, the emergency procedure is from an interview aboard the iss and the astronaut claiming they don't know. The other stuff is claiming that submarine crews are very large and require around the clock maintenance. They do have over 100+ crew in submarines while the ISS has between 3 and 6 people. Is the crew size of the submarine actually necessary? Not sure. Maybe maintenance is light or maybe its not comparable. The ISS is extremely big and seems like a crew of 3 to 6 would have issues, but perhaps not.

 

[zeomax]

As for the vacuum, I don't know but strong vacuums seem pretty strong they can lift tens of tons or collapse even steel containers.


Here I assume it didn't collapse at -20psi nor -25psi, but at -27psi it imploded.

It's not the vacuum that implodes the container it's the pressure of the atmosphere.

 

[MadAnon]

That's not vaccum crashing the tank. It's atmospheric pressure crashing it. Vaccum literally doesn't apply any kind of force to anything. When you have no air pushing from inside against the tank but have pressure from outside, the tank gets's crashed. You would think "Then why ISS doesn't explode from inside out?" Well, imagine an empty tin can and watch what happens when you apply a force from outside - its structure gets bent rather easily. Now imagine what would happen if you apply the same force from inside. You wouldn't be able to do anything. It can contain higher pressure than sustain from outside. You need way more pressure/force from inside to damage the structure. You need enough force to rip the tin apart to damage the structure while from outside you just bend it inwards. If you build enough pressure inside ISS, it would explode.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

It's not the vacuum that implodes the container it's the pressure of the atmosphere.

... comment below
That's not vaccum crashing the tank. It's atmospheric pressure crashing it. Vaccum literally doesn't apply any kind of force to anything. When you have no air pushing from inside against the tank but have pressure from outside, the tank gets's crashed. You would think "Then why ISS doesn't explode from inside out?" Well, imagine an empty tin can and watch what happens when you apply a force from outside - its structure gets bent rather easily. Now imagine what would happen if you apply the same force from inside. You wouldn't be able to do anything. It can contain higher pressure than sustain from outside. You need way more pressure/force from inside to damage the structure. You need enough force to rip the tin apart to damage the structure while from outside you just bend it inwards. If you build enough pressure inside ISS, it would explode.

yes, but if the vacuum was outside and the atmosphere inside the container, the atmosphere inside would likely also burst out and break the container.

There are experiments where cans explode when placed inside a vacuum chamber.(edit:Though that could be because they're filled with liquid.)

edit2:
There's also a difference some of the containers that are crushed with a vacuum inside are steel containers, while the ISS is said to be a few millimeters of aluminum thick, iirc. It probably works out, but it is a big structure and one may imagine leaks.

 

[MadAnon]

yes, but if the vacuum was outside and the atmosphere inside the container, the atmosphere inside would likely also burst out and break the container.

There are experiments where canisters explode when placed inside a vacuum chamber.

And I explained it.

Vaccum has 0 pressure.
Atmosphere has has 14.69 psi.
Fire extinguisher has more than x10 the pressure inside it. Why it doesn't explode with such pressure difference?

You need way more pressure/force from inside to explode the structure than collapse (bend) it inwards. Ofc the canisters will blow up if the pressure is high enough inside. Just like ISS would if the pressure is raised high enough.

 

[Rentahamster]

Omega Supreme Holopsicon Isn't you original question "why is the ISS so much more flimsy looking than a military submarine"? The ISS only has to withstand a pressure differential of 1 atmosphere at max. A submarine has to be built to withstand 44 atmospheres or more.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

And I explained it.

Vaccume has 0 pressure.
Atmosphere has has 14.69 psi.
Fire extinguisher has more than x10 the pressure inside it. Why it doesn't explode?

You need way more pressure/force from inside to explode the structure than collapse (bend) it inwards. Ofc the canisters will blow up if the pressure is high enough inside.

True, I'd forgotten about those.

Those are steel, I thought the ISS was made of aluminum but it seems not.

Titanium, Kevlar, and high-grade steel are common materials in the ISS. Engineers had to use these materials to make the structure lightweight yet strong and puncture-resistant. Because each of the aluminum-can shaped components of the Station has to be lifted into orbit, minimizing weight is crucial. -nasa

Guess there is no issue then.

edit:

Omega Supreme Holopsicon Isn't you original question "why is the ISS so much more flimsy looking than a military submarine"? The ISS only has to withstand a pressure differential of 1 atmosphere at max. A submarine has to be built to withstand 44 atmospheres or more.

The ISS goes around the earth like once every 92 minutes. Seemingly going from hot to cold and back again many times per day. It is also bombarded by radiation.

It is very big, and has been up there for over a decade, iirc.

My issues are that perhaps a crew of 3 to 6 is not enough to handle that, but it may be enough.(edit: the issue was not about being flimsly looking but about maintenance of large structure in hostile environment, and also i'd erroneously remembered it was aluminum but it isn't.)

Also that given like 2% failure rate of rockets, it is not a good idea to be sending people up there constantly.

 

[Grinchy]

Let's say it was all fake and that space agencies have been successfully lying for all these years.

You think that they would have missed a detail like, "This looks flimsy compared to submarines." Like all the heads that got together to pull off this massive con for all these years forgot what submarines looked like when they designed the "fake" space structures?

 

[Rentahamster]

The ISS goes around the earth like once every 92 minutes.

So? It's fast. It's in orbit. There's no air resistance (but it does get hit by small debris)

Seemingly going from hot to cold and back again many times per day.

Yeah, so? There's lots of thermal systems in place to regulate temperature.

International Space Station - NASA

To view more images, visit the Space Station Gallery.

science.nasa.gov

Is It Hot Or Cold At The International Space Station?

A buddy of mine once showed me a video of an astronaut onboard the ISS talking about the things he and the other members of his team did on a daily basis up there in space, and generally explaining what it's like to live aboard the ISS

www.scienceabc.com

It is also bombarded by radiation.

OK, but so what? Radiation on the relatively small scale that the ISS experiences doesn't damage hull integrity. If you're on the ISS for a year, you experience the radiation equivalent of 10-15 CT scans.

Scott Kelly’s year in space highlights risks to DNA and brains

It’s an example of human adaptability in space.

www.theverge.com

During Scott’s time on the ISS, he experienced about 146 millisieverts of ionizing space radiation, which is about equivalent to 10 to 15 abdominal CT scans, Bailey says.

They also have other countermeasures in place for events like solar flares.

How are the astronauts in the ISS protected from solar flares?

The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation which may consist of UV, IR, X-rays and also the charge particles that are emitted from the sun which are harmful to humans. But during intense solar flares it

space.stackexchange.com

I also don't know why you keep comparing it to submarines when it's an apples to oranges comparison. Like I said, the sub has to endure much much much more extreme forces on its hull. There are more people because they have more tasks than just doing science experiments. They also have to operate a nuclear reactor and nuclear missile launch platform, and be prepared for war at a moment's notice. It's also a lot cheaper to put more people in a submarine. It takes a lot more money per person to staff the ISS.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

So? It's fast. It's in orbit. There's no air resistance (but it does get hit by small debris)


Yeah, so? There's lots of thermal systems in place to regulate temperature.

International Space Station - NASA

To view more images, visit the Space Station Gallery.

science.nasa.gov

Is It Hot Or Cold At The International Space Station?

A buddy of mine once showed me a video of an astronaut onboard the ISS talking about the things he and the other members of his team did on a daily basis up there in space, and generally explaining what it's like to live aboard the ISS

www.scienceabc.com

I'm not saying they can't regulate internal temperature, what I'm saying is that the external hull experiences constant temperature changes that should affect it over time.

OK, but so what? Radiation on the relatively small scale that the ISS experiences doesn't damage hull integrity. If you're on the ISS for a year, you experience the radiation equivalent of 10-15 CT scans.

Scott Kelly’s year in space highlights risks to DNA and brains

It’s an example of human adaptability in space.

www.theverge.com

They also have other countermeasures in place for events like solar flares.

How are the astronauts in the ISS protected from solar flares?

The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation which may consist of UV, IR, X-rays and also the charge particles that are emitted from the sun which are harmful to humans. But during intense solar flares it

space.stackexchange.com

A CT scan is like 100-200 x rays, so that's 1000-3000 x ray of radiation(and that seems to be per person. The entire structure receives far more radiation than that if that's what a single person gets inside).

My concerns with regard to radiation is not necessarily hull integrity, but electronics. Even on the ground ram errors can occur from cosmic rays. Up there, not only could there be system crashes from errors, but atmospheric composition, altitude, etc are likely controlled by data in electronic systems. Perhaps error correcting memory is enough, and perhaps even the cpu caches have error correction. Don't know what measures they've taken.

 

[zeomax]

My concerns with regard to radiation is not necessarily hull integrity, but electronics. Even on the ground ram errors can occur from cosmic rays. Up there, not only could there be system crashes from errors, but atmospheric composition, altitude, etc are likely controlled by data in electronic systems. Perhaps error correcting memory is enough, and perhaps even the cpu caches have error correction. Don't know what measures they've taken.

Faraday cage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Faraday cage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

faraday cage protects from electromagnetic radiation but don't think it protects from cosmic rays which are physical atoms at high speed, iirc.

 

[zeomax]

They are working with ordinary Laptops. It looks like the low radiation is not a problem for the electronics.

 

[Rentahamster]

what I'm saying is that the external hull experiences constant temperature changes that should affect it over time.

I don't believe these changes are as quick or as drastic as you are imagining them to be. When you say:

there's also constant temperature changes from going from earth's shadow to earth's lit side.

What do you visualize in your head? Do you think that once the ISS is no longer exposed to sunlight, that it immediately plunges into freezing temperatures? Hot things don't really cool down very quickly in space because there is no air to transfer the heat to. The ISS orbits the Earth about 15 times every 24 hours, so that's about 90 minutes per revolution, and 45 minutes on the dark side. It's not like the entire station is going to freeze in 45 minutes. It can't shed its already accumulated heat fast enough.

On Earth, our bodies transfer heat to the surrounding air to shed heat. On the ISS, there is no air outside, so it has to rely on that other radiator machine that I linked to earlier. When I linked the info about how the ISS regulates temperature, that is for the entire station. The inside is connected to the outside, and would also experience thermal transfer.

That being said, I'm sure the station still goes through some degree of thermal differences throughout its structure that must affect it. That is also why the station is specifically engineered with the right materials to handle that kind of situation.

In short, the answer to you question is:

1. These temperature fluctuations are not as crazy wild or as harmful as you think they are. But they are still pretty "extreme" relative to our everyday experiences on Earth.

2. The ISS is made out of some tough stuff, and engineered to specifications that deal with dangers like temperature fluctuations or say, space debris.

4: SHIELDING THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION | Protecting the Space Station from Meteoroids and Orbital Debris | The National Academies Press

Read chapter 4: SHIELDING THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION: Protecting the Space Station from Meteoroids and Orbital Debris...

www.nap.edu

The ISS program plans to shield many ISS elements to protect the station from meteoroids and orbital debris. The meteoroid and debris AIT has developed numerous potential shield designs and tested their performance against hypervelocity impacts. Such shielding will be necessary because meteoroids and debris will impact the ISS at velocities sufficient to cause a wide range of damaging effects.

Home, Space Home | Science Mission Directorate

On the ground, the International Space Stationwould be an odd looking building -- but space is an odd place to live! Find out how space weather, orbital free fall, and the Space Shuttle's payload bay shapes the architecture of the ISS.

science.nasa.gov

Because each of the aluminum-can shaped components of the Station has to be lifted into orbit, minimizing weight is crucial. Lightweight aluminum, rather than steel, comprises most of the outer shell for the modules.


This shell must also provide protection from impacts by tiny meteoroids and man-made debris. Because the ISS zips through space at about 27,000 km/h, even dust-sized grains present a considerable danger. Man-made debris, a drifting legacy of past space exploration, poses an even greater threat.


To ensure the safety of the crew, the Space Station wears a "bullet-proof vest." Layers of Kevlar, ceramic fabrics, and other advanced materials form a blanket up to 10 cm thick around each module's aluminum shell.

A typical window for a house on Earth has 2 panes of glass, each about 1/16 inch thick. In contrast, the ISS windows each have 4 panes of glass ranging from 1/2 to 1-1/4 inches thick. An exterior aluminum shutter provides extra protection when the windows are not in use.


The glass in these windows is subject to strict quality control, because even minute flaws would increase the chance that a micro-meteoroid could cause a fracture.


In orbit, a major force is the pressure of the air inside the ISS, which presses on each square inch of the modules' interior with almost 15 pounds of force. (Homes on Earth also have this internal pressure, but the external pressure of the atmosphere balances it out.)

Here is a Youtube experiment that can educate about temperature changes in a vacuum.



Is part of the reason you think the temperature change of an object in space is because it is analogous to water in a vacuum? Water in a vacuum does boil and then freeze (in a relatively short period of time depending on the volume of water). Astronauts ejecting their pee into space observe it boiling and desublimating. That temperature change is due to lost energy from the phase change. The ISS is solid metal and does not undergo any such phase change.

A CT scan is like 100-200 x rays, so that's 1000-3000 x ray of radiation(and that seems to be per person. The entire structure receives far more radiation than that if that's what a single person gets inside).

So? Do you think cosmic radiation causes hull damage?

My concerns with regard to radiation is not necessarily hull integrity, but electronics. Even on the ground ram errors can occur from cosmic rays. Up there, not only could there be system crashes from errors, but atmospheric composition, altitude, etc are likely controlled by data in electronic systems. Perhaps error correcting memory is enough, and perhaps even the cpu caches have error correction. Don't know what measures they've taken.

Ah, well then.

Developing Radiation Hardened Electronics for Space Environments | Tempo

Why do you need radiation hardened electronics for space environments? This blog provides the answer and how to best develop them.

www.tempoautomation.com

The evolving world of radiation-hardened electronics

The electronics industry is developing high-reliability integrated circuits to suit a variety of space applications, and is tailoring different levels of reliability for specific...

www.militaryaerospace.com

Radiation hardening - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rentahamster]

Good points here. I like his approach to question number 5. It's a very simple and straightforward framing to understanding that phenomena.

 

[MetalAlien]

"A refrigerated soda can runs about 25-30 psi and a room-temperature soda can runs about 50-60 psi. As the temperature rises, the pressure will steadily increase until the can bursts, which should be over 100 psi."

That's just a cheap ass soda can.

 

[sol_bad]

Can someone explain to me how this works? How do you get a camera to stay still as the Earth rotates?

 

[Sandyman]

The moon isn’t real. Every night the government just throws a disco ball really high and we have all been lied to. I want evidence to prove me wrong.

 

[MetalAlien]

Can someone explain to me how this works? How do you get a camera to stay still as the Earth rotates?

He probably didn't. He just cropped the video and kept the sky stationary in his editor.

 

[Rentahamster]

Can someone explain to me how this works? How do you get a camera to stay still as the Earth rotates?

It's a form of digital image stabilization. Normally, when you make a starry night timelapse, it looks like this:



However, instead of keeping the ground as the constant static object in the frame, you take the sky as the static object, and you rotate each subsequent frame to match it. You will end up having to crop a lot, but if you start with a wide enough frame, you can do it.

Here's where you can see the stabilization in action.

 

[sol_bad]

So it's essentially cheating? That's a shame.
I was going to be amazed if there was some way to do that without any tricks.
lol

 

[Tesseract]

Rentahamster has been training at 1000x gravity, new contestants blown the fuck out

 

[DESTROYA]

Why is there a cat in the stars? Holy shit God is a cat!

 

[Rentahamster]

So it's essentially cheating? That's a shame.
I was going to be amazed if there was some way to do that without any tricks.
lol

Cheating? How is that cheating? lol

What if it's done mechanically? You can use an equatorial mount for that.

Confused about equatorial mounts? Find out how to set one up and track objects across the night sky

www.skyatnightmagazine.com

Equatorial mount - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is that cheating too? Cuz the end result is the same.

 

[sol_bad]

Cheating? How is that cheating? lol

What if it's done mechanically? You can use an equatorial mount for that.

Confused about equatorial mounts? Find out how to set one up and track objects across the night sky

www.skyatnightmagazine.com

Equatorial mount - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is that cheating too? Cuz the end result is the same.

If you use an equatorial mount, the footage will look like the Earth is rotating and not the sky? Or do you still need to manipulate the footage?

 

[MetalAlien]

Everything is cheating. Up isn't really up.

 

[Rentahamster]

If you use an equatorial mount, the footage will look like the Earth is rotating and not the sky? Or do you still need to manipulate the footage?

More or less, but you'll probably still need to do some cleanup in post. The point is, you can either spend a thousand dollars on a crazy astrophotography contraption or choose to do it in a couple hours in Photoshop. The result is essentially the same.

I think you're getting distracted by the "manipulation" aspect of the process. This isn't "fakery" like a deepfake video or some kind of green screen effect. This is simply an adjustment of the reference frame to give us a different perspective on life. Do it on your computer or on some star tracker device. They're all just tools used to illustrate the same principle.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I'm beyond amazed that there's people who reject reality like this. Has there been any flat earther that has realised the reality of our planet though discussion? Because I get the feeling that the end result is that they feel shamed and retreat even more into the echo chamber.

 

[Rentahamster]

Because I get the feeling that the end result is that they feel shamed and retreat even more into the echo chamber.

Part of the social conditioning that comes with any fringe belief is that eventually your close social circles are comprised of only those people who share those fringe beliefs, so if you were to abandon them, you'd wind up with no friends. It's a self-reinforcing social pressure.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Part of the social conditioning that comes with any fringe belief is that eventually your close social circles are comprised of only those people who share those fringe beliefs, so if you were to abandon them, you'd wind up with no friends. It's a self-reinforcing social pressure.

Trapped by a delusion in more ways than one =/

You're doing a good job here, perhaps those seeds of doubt will eventually flourish.

 

[Rentahamster]

NASA faking space pics again, those dastardly no gooders.

Astronomy Picture of the Day

A different astronomy and space science related image is featured each day, along with a brief explanation.

apod.nasa.gov

Spoiler

Explanation: Is this asteroid Arrokoth or a potato? Perhaps, after all the data was beamed back to Earth from NASA's robotic New Horizons spacecraft, the featured high resolution image of asteroid Arrokoth was constructed. Perhaps, alternatively, the featured image is of a potato. Let's consider some facts. Arrokoth is the most distant asteroid ever visited and a surviving remnant of the early years of our Solar System. A potato is a root vegetable that you can eat. Happy April Fool's Day from the folks at APOD! Although asteroid Arrokoth may look like a potato, in fact very much like the featured potato, Arrokoth (formerly known as Ultima Thule) is about 200,000 times wider and much harder to eat.

 

[Airola]

That's a Binding of Isaac enemy!

 

[Jayjayhd34]

So I'm really struggling understand something about flat earth. Flat eatthers say there's walll of ice in Antarctica. However then proceed to say its around the whole world so can't just be in antarctica?

Next question is why have they been unable to get to make exact model of a flat earth why does only include a few countries?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I think you're getting distracted by the "manipulation" aspect of the process. This isn't "fakery" like a deepfake video or some kind of green screen effect. This is simply an adjustment of the reference frame to give us a different perspective on life. Do it on your computer or on some star tracker device. They're all just tools used to illustrate the same principle.

under relativity geocentrism is equally valid.

In fact there are quotes suggesting Einstein developed relativity because he was bothered the Michaelson Morley experiment showed a stationary earth. So you needed relative frames, and heliocentrism or geocentrism are equally valid under that framework

So I'm really struggling understand something about flat earth. Flat eatthers say there's walll of ice in Antarctica. However then proceed to say its around the whole world so can't just be in antarctica?

Next question is why have they been unable to get to make exact model of a flat earth why does only include a few countries?

That map imagine a circle of ice around that.

 

[Jayjayhd34]

under relativity geocentrism is equally valid.

In fact there are quotes suggesting Einstein developed relativity because he was bothered the Michaelson Morley experiment showed a stationary earth. So you needed relative frames, and heliocentrism or geocentrism are equally valid under that framework


That map imagine a circle of ice around that.

Still not following that map doesn't even count 10% of the world let alone the other 90%.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Still not following that map doesn't even count 10% of the world.

just add whatever 10% is missing.

There's north america south america africa asia europe australia in that map. All the mayor continents are on that map. whatever small islands remain is probably because they're not that important, but would be trivial to add.

here's another pic, with antartica around

 

[Jayjayhd34]

just add whatever 10% is missing.

There's north america south america africa asia europe australia in that map. All the mayor continents are on that map. whatever small islands remain is probably because they're not that important, but would be trivial to add.

wasn't clear that map to me does even look like the size of eroupe let alone entire world. Now of cause it matters FES trying to claim that they are more intelligent that every scientist out there but they can't even make convincing map of the world ? That to me does not scream intelligence to me.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

wasn't clear that map to me does even look like the size of eroupe let alone entire world. Now of cause it matters FES trying to claim that they are more intelligent that every scientist out there but they can't even make convincing map of the world ? That to me does not scream intelligence to me.

the problem is you're accustomed to a map with distorted continent size. The real size of the continents is much different, europe is much smaller in the correct size map


This is the correct continent size map.

Boston's public schools have adopted a new, more accurate world map - The World from PRX

Boston's public schools are leading the way with the Gall-Peters projection world maps for its classrooms.

www.pri.org

 

[Jayjayhd34]

the problem is you're accustomed to a map with distorted continent size. The real size of the continents is much different, europe is much smaller in the correct size map


This is the correct continent size map.

Fuck me this conspiracy goes deeper than i thought.......

your implying a meter isn't a meter then.

im lost for fucking words

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Fuck me this conspiracy goes deeper than i thought.......

your implying a meter isn't a meter then.

im lost for fucking words

No I'm not implying shit.

The gleason map has issues with proportions still which is why many flat earthers say it is only an approximation.

Still it is not so well known that the maps in school have distorted europe north america and asia to be significantly bigger and south america and africa to be significantly smaller.

commonly used map



real world proportions correct map


It is well known that under the real world proportions with real world meters africa is gigantic

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

and that is only the beginning, the fleet of starlink is said to get massively bigger and span the globe. I wonder if Musk will get fines for visual contamination at night