File: ptolemymodel.jpg (78 KB, 686x386)

78 KB JPG

ptolemy's "unrealistic" flower-like orbits for reference

>>42438856
Whoops, typo in OP. Scientists say the moon's orbit of Earth* is a flowershaped orbit. Obv they don't say the moon orbits the sun.
there shouldn't be a need for debate if NASA just took legitimate videos from their satellites and rovers.

Ptolemy wasn't right. you're just dumb. The earth does de facto orbit around the sun along a semi elliptical path. That's how orbits work because that's how gravity works.

Toss a baseball in the air and trace the path. It's not a perfect arc. it's a hyperbolic cosine arc (caternary curve). That's how gravity works. If you wanted to put any point in the center of the solar system and draw orbits around it, you could.

The reason we use the sun is because it makes sense. The orbits are the most simple around the sun, and the energy is minimized. Any other orbits either incorrectly addresses gravity, or exists outside a minimal energy state.

>>42438857
>moon goes around earth because earth bigger than moon
>other moons go around their planet because planet bigger than moons
why saturn, jupiter etc make little loops? what they go round? Grug not know.

>>42438856
>You said it was an irrational, unrealistic model.
Who said that?
I said it is inelegant, and inefficient, and less accurate.
But I dont remember anyone ever saying "irrational" and "unrealistic".
Of course it is those things. the model was built by the rational idea that you can track the planets and describe their motion, and it is as real as what you see in the sky.
It just cant EXPLAIN anything.
It was abandoned because it cant explain what it observes, whereas the other model can.

Like. Please take the plot of Oumamua or whatever, put it into your tychonic model, and explain why it moved the way it did.

>>42439382
This is what astronomists do. They bullshit their way out of everything.

There are many 'moons' that orbit 'planets' where the moon is larger than the planet.
So then the astronomer says:
"Well then, the thing that is orbiting IS a moon based on this"
And if this 'moon' is drastically bigger in size than what it orbits:
"Well then, we 'know' now that this moon must be suuuuper light and that tiny planet it's orbiting must be suuuuper heavy!"

You can't reason with them because they make the math work for them. They literally just fit everything to their model rather than simply observing and hypothesizing with a fresh slate.
We will never actually progress in our understanding of the universe because they have A - Y variables forced in and stacked like a toothpick Eiffel Tower and they just say "okay now find Z and if Z doesn't make sense... make it make sense"

That's why Astronomers now legitimately think the Moon was created in 13 hours.
Nothing else made sense with their continually increasingly nonsensical model but that explanation.
It's sad. And it's not science.

>>42439975
now you show grug big moon with little puny planet

>>42439982
see these:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260520093753.htm

https://carnegiescience.edu/how-did-get-made-giant-planet-orbits-small-star

File: cgptstar.png (126 KB, 838x677)

126 KB PNG

>>42439982

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yO_rRfFXU8

>>42438856
Uh i mean yes the moons motion relative to the sun tracka flowers because its literally an epicycle. The dumb thing about ptolemy is not the flower. I dont recall that being the problem. The problem is hat you claim its perfect when in reality its wonky as hell, has to be infinitely adjusted and literally everything still goes around the sun except the moon and the sun itself. So its one step removed from being a heliocentric model. Also the discussion was about the tychonic model. I dont know anything about the ptolemaic one except that it is geocentric and very obviously false which is why nobody takes that seriously. Anyway its not about it being realistic or unrealistic its the fact that the tychonic model literally fails to account for certain celestial observations of retrogrades except if you infinitely tune it only to achieve a fraction of an ellipse's power. Sixty nested circles to estimate a few decimal points is not perfection, its the opposite of that. People dropped this model for a reason

Also regarding your question about space videos of the earth going around the sun: its because you would have to point a deep space satellite at earths orbit around the sun for a year and earth is only a tiny speck so it wouldnt even look cool therefore you would dismiss it anyway because you couldnt understand the scale or what is being shown or visualized. Scientists look at stuff that matters with those deep space satellites instead because they are pretty rare and expensive. Hole that helps answer your question

>>42440033
that very different to what you first tell grug. no big moon go round puny planet.

>>42440062
>pic
also different. even grug know white dwarf was sun before. this also not count.

grug think you liar. grug not like liars. bad for grug.

>>42440253
Yeah I think the first two links don't apply but the third one does.

Here are more:
PSR B1257+12
Neutron star size: ~20 km
Orbiting planets: Earth-sized or larger (PSR B1257+12 c is about 4× Earth’s mass)


WD 1856+534 b
Planet diameter: roughly Jupiter-sized (~140,000 km)
White dwarf diameter: ~18,000 km
the planet is physically about 8× wider than the star it orbits. The white dwarf is tiny because it’s "ultra-dense".

PSR B1259−63
Companion star: millions of km across
Neutron star: only about 20 km wide


PSR B1257+12
First confirmed exoplanet system ever discovered.

Central object: Neutron star (pulsar): ~20 km diameter

Planets: PSR B1257+12 b, PSR B1257+12 c
PSR B1257+12 d. all thousands of times larger


WD J0914+1914
White dwarf: Earth-sized
Neptune-like planet: ~50,000 km wide


And so on.

2 things:
you're going to say this doesn't apply because "well that's not technically a MOON orbiting a PLANET. That's a NEUTRON STAR"... blah blah. But that's my point exactly: Based on their behavior NOT fitting the toothpick Eiffel Tower model, you go "oh shit the tiny dot is being orbited by huge dots... uhh uhh uhh okay this tiny dot must be a collapsed ultra-dense thing. Um that's the only way it makes sense with our math and careers so umm let's put that in print and declare it fact now".
you're naming and declaring shit constantly to fit the model
at the end of the day they are dots on a screen you can barely see and you're constantly being thrown curveballs

and now you're literally declaring that the Moon was made in 13 hours. because all your 'science' and 'math' was backed into a corner based on decades and decades of just declaring shit as true based on pixels and bad computer physics.

>>42440492
haha. I forgot to write the second thing.

The second thing is:
Even if I cannot list here a "Moon" that orbits a "Planet", I can provide you links where the theory is accepted as true. What I mean is that it's currently scientifically accepted that an enormously sized "moon" can orbit an extremely tiny "planet". All that matters is density. That's not disputed. I just struggled to find actual examples of it but it's already accepted in theory/presumed to be true given the scale of the universe regardless

>>42440253
Here's a real question, not a gotcha because I don't know:
Is there any proof/evidence that a neutron star is incredibly dense *other* than the fact that bigger things are orbiting it?
if it's based on astrophotography that's kind of sus to me because a lot of the JWST pics for example are close to seeming like art pieces that remind me of long exposure shots of busy cities.

>>42439975
>There are many 'moons' that orbit 'planets' where the moon is larger than the planet.
like?

>>42440492
>you're going to say this doesn't apply because "well that's not technically a MOON orbiting a PLANET. That's a NEUTRON STAR"... blah blah. But that's my point exactly
Your point was you lied and dont have any examples of a moon larger than the planet they orbit?
Weird point.

>>42441045
It seems that when it happens, it simply becomes *classified* as something else based solely on it happening.

>A moon does not orbit its planet! It orbits their common barycentre or centre of gravity. *******If the moon was larger than the planet this barycentre would be between the two objects and they would form a binary planet.*******

It's a game of constantly changing definitions.
When it is witnessed in space, it's re-classified as not a moon anymore, but that doesn't take away from it being physically the same thing. It's just changing the word to fit it into the lore.

And yes, that is my point above.

>>42441181
>when it happens
But it never has, or you would have linked it.

Unlike the ptolemaic model, orbits are not perfectly circular but elliptical.

>>42441205
You're somewhat playing dumb here.
When I saw that astrophysicists consider it valid for a moon to orbit a planet that is smaller than it in size, I simply assumed (with an infinite universe) that there were many examples of this happening.
I was unable to find examples of it whenever I actually looked. But it is still considered valid physics. Because they say the orbit is based on density, not size, which makes enough sense.
So because it's already accepted as true in theory, I don't understand why pressing me for live examples of it is so much of a trump card for you.

Furthermore, when you do actually look for observed examples, you find the phenomenon of super large things orbiting much smaller things but with other terms used. The explanations are (1) the super large things, when they orbit much smaller things, are much denser than the smaller thing and/or (2) they have a shared orbit in the "binary planet" classification.
Because these people are ultimately just dealing with pixels on a screen and theories, I am not convinced that the massive dot that orbits the tiny dot is actually known/proven to be denser, other than that it just works better for their preestablished formulas.

This should make sense when written out like this now.

>>42441509
>When I saw that astrophysicists consider it valid for a moon to orbit a planet that is smaller than it in size
Doubt. Where did you see this? Ignored the rest of your blather.

>>42440549
what does it matter if the pics look like art pieces? the ones youre seeing are probably made as de-facto advertisements to make what is essentially pages upon pages of maths and interpreting boring signals look appealing to the general public so the scientists get grant money because its all being spent on bombing random deserts instead. i dont see how it being long exposure or not would alter our perception of a neutron star's density. the things orbiting it can only tell us its mass, not its density. you would also need the volume which you figure out by measuring how often it spins per second. from there you can deduce the volume because smaller objects can spin faster whereas larger ones would get ripped apart. if you dont like the things orbiting the neutron star for whatever reason then you can also look at the redshift of light since only a super massive object would do that. also gravitational waves which only super massive objects emit.

so is there any proof or evidence? well we can make educated guesses. we cannot directly conduct experiments on neutron stars and our knowledge of them is very limited for obvious reasons. it makes little sense for laymen such as ourselves to discuss this topic but there you go.

File: blahblahquora.png (98 KB, 1218x472)

98 KB PNG

>>42441575
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-moon-be-larger-than-the-planet-it-orbits
just read through all the answers here
yes it's Quora; I chose it because you can see people's credentials as opposed to an anonymous forum. I can't find an actual article addressing this topic


>Kara Krelove
>BS Astrophysics, MS Geology
>if you mean can the moon of any particular planet be as big as that planet itself? Could Earth have an Earth-sized moon?
>Not really, no - but this is because of how we actually define a moon, not any physical restriction that would keep such a system from forming.
>>There is no such difference between a ‘planet’ and a ‘moon’. Planets and moons are the same physical stuff, formed by the same physical processes, and basically have the same physical properties.
>If a planet had an orbital companion that was nearly its own size, the barycenter of their orbit would be out in space between the two of them and we would call them a “double planet” or “binary planet” or “binary system” in the same pattern as we do with two stars that orbit each other.


--

another on there:
>Alan Bustany
>PhD Astrophysics
>In principle a moon could be larger but less dense (and therefore less massive) than its planet. This is extremely unlikely in practice.

>>42442329
As in deceptive due to that. New York doesn't actually look like a long exposure shot of New York.
The whole "low budget" thing seems so disingenuous.
It would be incredibly popular and make like $1million a day to have a Twitch livestream of astronauts, especially if you chose already-popular streamers that were ready to go.
People want to be proven that the space narrative is real. They want the 24/7, 360camera view, "in the life" live streams.
It would be educational, well-liked, successful, and popular.
It would massively outperform Awesome Games Done Quick and Starcraft Tournies or whatever livestreams.
There seems to be no sincere attempt from NASA to make their content readily available and digestible and actually transparent and informative. It's just trickle-truthing us constantly.

>>42443564
theyre not marketing experts and twitch streamers. boomers like to take space photos and dress them up because it just looks aesthetic as fuck to assign colors to wavelengths outside the visible spectrum and composite them. also theres a 24/7 ISS live stream so theres that. also daily himawari photos of earth. people will always deny what nasa puts out and nasa will never bother bending over backwards for those people. because ultimately no one cares if people believe what they say or not. you can love it or hate it but it is what it is. they could do their job better in many aspects but the same applies to any modern profession. what gives. even if a twitch livestream were profitable, they wouldnt do it because they dont have a marketing team and they arent knowledgable about business. all they know is their current way. theres just nothing too glamarous about space anyway. its just big empty dead inhospitable rocks in a sea of millions of miles of emptiness. they did the artemis mission and you saw it was boring as fuck but it did provide ample evidence of everything about the space narrative which of course was dismissed because it was not gen-z coded enough i guess. maybe if they sent a zoo of twitch niggers to space then people would believe them? or what? who fucking cares. besides, the U.S. already launched a monkey into space back in 1949. anyway you can say that nasa is lying to you if you like. i guess elon musk yaps about space all the time and it makes headlines constantly. its just that progress is too slow and the safety guardrails on missions too high for zoomer brains to not get lost in 200 conspiracy theories why they saw a white dot in the sky every other month. another problem is also bureaucracy and the overall decline of civilization as a whole. i dont think humanity will ever make it to mars at the current pace its going. china may have its spot in the sun for a few hundred years or so but that will probably be about it lol.

>>42438856
Another retard :(

>>42443657
>also theres a 24/7 ISS live stream so theres that.
Which just so happens to avoid the poles with its trajectory. Again, sus because there's no good, especially longform video from space of the poles. Always feels like they are trying to squeeze the least amount of information out as possible.

watch this footage for comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J22hKd8SZp8

doesn't this feel so much more like people genuinely trying to record things and to show people what they saw?
Whereas now we get like far away shots of a rocket disappearing into the sky, a livestream with a dark background, and someone taking a pic of the moon with their iPhone.

> the U.S. already launched a monkey into space back in 1949.
yeah, where is more of this stuff? The Rovers are capable of bringing things with them, even microorgasms. There are humane experiments you can be doing and showing in space that people care about. People stopped caring because NASA stopped earnestly disclosing.

>>42443657
And by the way, I watched a video about a Mars rover and it felt so much like NASA itself was preventing their own employees from executing simple ideas.
I have a feeling the frustration I'm feeling as an outsider is being felt 1000fold by people who are 'employed' by NASA but have no direct influence to actually perform space experiments without layers upon layers of approval, so they just have to do super shoddy, archaic things that barely move the needle on space progress.
It's insanity.

Damn it's been a minute guys. I am no longer 60/40 globe. I have converted over to retard flattie 60/40 flat. Too much deception in my research and a lot of shit that doesn't add up.

We have a long history of believing in flat earth as well and whoever made the pyramids are 100% more advanced than us now. What sparked my journey about 6 months ago was NASA and how I could see they are hiding SOMETHING about space at the minimum. That alone brought me to FE. It sounds like bs at first sight but the longer you sit on it, and the longer you do GENUINE HONEST research, the more it unravels to you. Reality is flipped. The truth is in most cases not what we are taught. Truth is not being a student. Truth is not being a teacher. Truth is seeing for yourself. Not belief, not faith, but just IS.

The current system and explanation for reality in terms of Earth and the universe is not correct I know that for sure. So instead, I seek the truth in 4chan schizo threads xD

>>42439392
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObfS9Wy1wZw&t=1s

Fun rabbit hole but just another perspective

>>42443873
i guess. the old times were more sovlful. that certain aesthetic spirit is long gone. i don't think thats only nasa though. and its been replaced by the stuff which you yourself said looks like art pieces. looking at old video games vs new ones you get a similar vibe gap. rather people stopped caring because nasa stopped caring.

>>42443883
everyone and everything is being suppressed by an ever festering system of a complete rejection of life. not only at nasa, not even only at work in general. its everywhere. youre not even allowed to socialize anymore. your kids could barely go play in a sandbox because they might hurt themselves or whatever. everything is a rotting corpse. i dont like speculating that theres some evil villain behind all this however i see why it may feel that way.

>>42444457
I've seen this guy's channel and I can definitely see it being plausible on premise alone. Simply: Bigger things once existed, died, their bodies became integrated as 'earth', smaller things used their bodies for sustenance etc. It makes sense on its own even without the evidence in its favor (like 1600s records of discovering giants embedded into mountains. and nobody thought it was weird to believe in a history of giants then btw.)

>>42444460
Yeah, the cowboy vibe of it is all gone. And also, at least IMO, the feeling of "anyone can participate in this! YOU too can be an astronaut one day, young boy!". Access to information seems closed-off; knowledge seems like something you can only get if you're born into (or buy into) a luxury club.
There's just this constant message of be scared, stay inside, be distracted by media, don't try to do any cool experiments at home, just work at a meaningless job that discovers nothing about the universe or meaning of life, be gay, and die.

>>42444622
Glad to see a fellow rational thinker <3

>>42444301
>Truth is seeing for yourself.
And what, specifically, have you done for yourself in determining the shape of the earth?
>>42444457
Also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
No one using the Tychonic model has any ability to plot the movements of something like Oumamua. It offers no explanatory ability that would allow it to, unlike the mass-based system.

>>42444622
>don't try to do any cool experiments at home
I have tried to give flerfers many many things they could do at home.
Never had a single one show that they tried it.
What cool experiments have you tried?
I ENCOURAGE you to go outside and do this stuff for yourself.

>>42438856
OP, if all orbits were perfectly circular, we would have total solar eclipses and total lunar eclipses every single new moon and full moon respectively

>>42445397
But as discussed in the thread, the mass-based system breaks based on observations of big things orbiting small things in space. And that system only revives again when you simply declare, "Well, the extremely smaller thing MUST have a lot more mass". And you just assume it's true without knowing. The science recursively validates its own hypotheses.
But honestly (and this is why I didn't respond to the first time you brought it up), I don't understand why you think the Oumamua path proves a mass-based system. Do you care to explain? I am interested. I'm also curious how you would separate what you attribute to [mass and gravity] from [density&buoyancy + magnetic pulls].

>>42445405
Just how you can do experiments that are tailored to fit the globe model, same goes for flerf. The laser test exists. It's not enough to be sure. I understand refraction (convenient response and glober's scapegoat, but fine, it's possible nevertheless). It's not enough. The only smoking gun is for you to go up to space yourself. Until then - you must gather data and bread crumbs here and there regardless of model. And if your conclusion isn't mine conclusion then idc lol. Not my care. We need different opinions or the world would be boring af. All good, who cares.

Approach as if you don't know the shape at all you feel me? That's how I got to my conclusion. And look - I'm not even sure. What I keep stating that I am personally sure of is there is deception going on when it comes to the whole FE umbrella including rotation, history, and space. Way too many red flags. Way too many coincidences. Math and scientific theories must be put aside for this. Clean slate. You know nothing. NOW figure out what the hell you are standing on. This is the best approach if you truly want to know what is true or not. Until you approach this topic with that mindset you are being dishonest it is what it is.

I also treat everyone of 4chan as if they are a bot. You will never see me get ragebaited on here that's retarded. I enjoy discussing these topics and that's it.

>>42445405
You can see experiments people do at home where they get locked, continual orbits using magnets. It just so happens the Earth has a magnetic field...

You never see experiments people can do at home of people replicating anything resembling an orbit by simply relying on mass and gravity.
The reason: "It requires extraordinary masses, so it's impossible to do at home". Okay, then.
In my opinion, a true formula should be infinitely scalable. You should be able to reproduce the effect of gravity on a tiny scale in the real world. The only thing resembling a small-scale-on-Earth proof of gravity is the Cavendish experiment, which has its own issues.


By the way, if the idea is that spacetime is a fabric where things are pulled by more massive things, then why is there a 'stopping' point in which the Moon for instance gets locked into a certain distance away from the Earth?
And why is the moon documented actually traveling *away* from the Earth over time rather than towards it?

and why does gravity even matter if magnetic force is a ridiculously stronger force anyway?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lifq0qUMm7E

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VLuojRRY33k

>>42445397
Doesn't matter. Why do you care what I've done? Don't worry about me. Worry about the topic, issue, or debate at hand. I could be a bot for all u know. I just threw out an idea from MFU that's it. No need to get the pitchfork out I ain't Shrek homie.

Did you personally plot the movements for both models? Did you verify it's existence in the first place? We don't know everything, I think we can agree on that, so there are things to learn. Is it possible that Oumamamama and it's trajectory is something for us to learn because we simply don't know? Why assume we have everything solved and figured out?

>>42445529
>Why do you care what I've done?
Because you just said ow important it is to see it personally, and yet all you have ever done is post youtube videos, indicating all you have ever done is watch other people tell you things.
So you come across as either really retarded, or a massive hypocrite and liar.

>>42445462
>the mass-based system breaks based on observations of big things orbiting small things in space.
1 - no it doesnt
2 - when pressed you admitted you lied and no examples of what you said exist, so now you are changing it desperately
>I don't understand why you think the Oumamua path proves a mass-based system.
It's not a proof, it is a challenge of ability.
A mass-based system can predict and explain its movement.
The tychonic system cant.
Simple as.

>>42445570
You're assuming. And now we're discussing if I'm a hypocrite or not. I would be the first to admit it, I have no problem with being wrong. Helps me grow. Instead of doing the small side quests stick the the main quest my g. What I do in my spare time is not a main quest for you - I hope not. It's all perspective. Same religion different sects. Same animal different race. Same human (I think? 0.0 kek) different opinions <3

>>42445591
>You're assuming.
No, I'm not. I am observing you through multiple threads.
But go ahead and post something that proves me wrong.
You wont.

File: peace-disappear.gif (139 KB, 220x218)

139 KB GIF

>>42445604
Nice try. Not today, my friend, not today.

>>42445584
OK, and you did not acknowledge that it's an accepted part of astrophysics once I provided >>42443548 upon your request
. So it feels at this point like a disingenuous convo. And you didn't answer my questions at the end of >>42445462
but it's fine

>>42445413

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPVCJjTNgk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

I'm not sure if I understand your point.
It seems like the Greeks did fine predicting eclipses from a geocentric, circular orbits perspective.

>>42443548
You struggle comprehending the difference between volume and density.
You need to learn the basics if you want to discuss this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg

>>42446908
i love that video,
but if you think I'm confused about size not being equivalent with weight, you are wrong-
I'm disputing though the validity of looking at something big (in a telescope) orbiting something significantly smaller and making the declaration that the big thing must have less mass than the small thing. It's shaping reality to your formulas. they've basically worked out an entire lore system in which they can never be proven wrong because they have an 'explanation' for every possible scenario that contradicts their basic starting premises
In the meantime, NASA will provide hardly any videos of stars from outer space. "we can't do that; we'd have to change the camera settings" Then take a second camera finetuned for viewing stars wtf. people who study stars for a living are working off of crumbs.

>>42447014
>making the declaration that the big thing must have less mass than the small thing
You're getting mad at a hypothetical scenario you dreamed up.
Go find a moon larger than its planet.

>>42445462
Wot about red shift and gravitational waves.

>>42445464
I am 100% sure that if you sent most flat earthers to space they would still deny the globe. Even if yahweh himself (assuming they are jewish) descended down onto earth and told them explicitly the earth is a globe, they would simply claim that it is a bigger conspiracy than they thought. How can i come to the same conclusions with a guy like that?

Also, you can 100% put everything aside and figure out the shape today for example by looking at the sunset and asking someone in the opposite hemisphere which way the appears to sun set for them (left to right vs right to left). Of course this is dismissed by saying there are multiple holographic suns deceiving us but that comes back to the point above.

>>42445521
We have a precise set up for cavendish today using a laser which consistently finds the same result. Just because earth has a magnetic field doesnt mean anything orbits it. You cant lock something in orbit using magnets for objects the size of earth as far as we know. The moon isnt traveling away from earth as far as i know but either way gravity doesnt necessitate for the moon to go towards earth, you have to look at all the forces acting on the moon. Gravity overpowers electromagnetism if you have a super massive inert (not charged) object. So why would it not matter.

>>42445529
I also dont have to verify how or why my car works to know it just works. No reason to figure out oumuamouas trajectory until it stops accurately matching our predictions of it.

>>42447014
Nasa lore may be abstract for the average human but they use real cameras and interpret real signals and then improve that technology to get more precise readings and they keep gathering data to get more informed. They just keep stress testing the mainstream model and so far there are no glaring issues that couldnt reasonably be explained within that framework. It may not be ideal but they will keep researching

>>42447027
should I repeat myself even though you've already acknowledged what I wrote?
you're stuck on this being a huge trump card for you that there is not an observed 'moon' orbiting a smaller 'planet' when astrophysicists acknowledge that it's valid within the infinite universe.
furthermore, if you have something that is observed to be 20km wide (supposedly) being orbited by things that are 1000s of times larger than it (supposedly), and then have to come up with an explanation that well the 20km thing must be 1.4x more massive than our Sun!, and this is all based on some shit you can barely see, i honestly think it's some pseudoscience and that that's why astrophysicists is such a rare career because it's a semifake job

>>42447118
>when astrophysicists acknowledge that it's valid
The hypothetical scenario would be valid. Volume != Density
I don't see why you're getting mad at the scenario you dreamed up.

>>42447113
>they will keep researching
oh they are researching. they're just not disclosing what they actually find and what they actually do. IMO.
why is no one responding though to the fact that now scientists are trying to say the moon was created in 13 hours? doesn't it just make you laugh? It's like someone was paid to come up with ANY working simulation that covers all their possible jumbled rules, and someone finally managed to make a supercomputer somewhat achieve that result, and the best they could do was some wonky simulation where the moon was created in 13 hours lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRlhlCWplqk
imagine this being your job to simulate the tangled web of 'astrophysics' with computers that can't even properly simulate water

File: retarrrr.png (28 KB, 803x107)

28 KB PNG

>>42447130
because of things like this
Anything to claim authority and cling to your lorebooks rather than accept an alternative model at this point.

>>42447158
>because of things like this
That's the core of a star.
Again, you don't understand that volume and density are different.
You don't understand the joke about how 1kg of steel == 1 kg of feathers.

>>42447150
I just realized also that one of the main things people mock about the Bible is the idea of the world being created in 7 days.
and now those same people have to defend the moon being created in 13 hours

>>42447150
Why would i believe that the moon was created in any timespan longer or shorter than 13 hours?

Also they are sharing their research from the probes that go to other planets

>>42447167
Bruh, I understand. I'm saying it's fucking ridiculous to say that a 20km thing has more mass than a 1,392,000 km thing because you looked at the little dot in your telescope and realized bigger dots were orbiting it and that you fucked up and now you gotta say some ridiculous shit to defend continuing to teach children this garbage.

>>42447178
>it's fucking ridiculous to say that a 20km thing has more mass than a 1,392,000 km thing
You don't understand the difference between volume and density.

>>42447168
Because 7 is a number some dude thought is perfect whereas 13 hours is up for debate and simply our current best guess that fits into our existing model of reality

>>42447180
Yes I understand that you're saying the 20km thing is really, really, really, REALLY tightly packed and that's how it has 1.4x the mass of the Sun.
But since they're just doing this based on dots on their telescopes and fear that their theories are collapsing and that they'd lose their careers and respect and would have to admit the very fundamentals they've preached *might* not be correct, I'm simply saying that I don't believe it. The people who say that science is this changeable thing are wrong; it's actually set up now to be inflexible, gatekept, and whiteknuckled until we have a 1.4x mass dot and a 13-hour moon lol. GG.

>>42447185
yeah and it just so happens that ancient, God-believing civilizations were able to extremely accurately predict eclipses with their geocentric models. almost as if they understood more about how things worked than us. honestly, prob because they were more recently visited by ayys or something

>>42447196
>But since they're just doing this based on dots on their telescopes
They were predicted decades earlier based on their regular release of radio waves.
>I'm simply saying that I don't believe it.
You haven't provided a reason though. You're just being a contrarian for attention.
>The people who say that science is this changeable thing are wrong
It changes all the time.
>it's actually set up now to be inflexible, gatekept, and whiteknuckled
Make a better model. Conspiracy theories are not models.

>>42447212
It also happens that we can more accurately predict eclipses contrary to what tiktok may have you believe

>>42447219
magnetism, buoyancy&density
the truth is probably most obtainable by looking at the world on a microscale, where we have electrons orbiting a nucleus
>Electrons stay bound to the nucleus because their negative charge is attracted to the positively charged protons

something like that
and probably creationism or alien genes within us or something weird that isn't just a meaningless nonsupernatural existence. why would the people in charge meet at Boh. Grov if they didn't believe in anything supernatural. we have records upon records from ancient civs telling us about giants, dragons, and gods and we're just going to say they were all full of it because we know better than them. nah

>>42447288
Buoyancy and density are not vectors. Electromagnetism cannot account for cavendish.

>>42446384
>>if you mean can the moon of any particular planet be as big as that planet itself? Could Earth have an Earth-sized moon?
>>Not really, no
You're right. I should have accepted that you were wrong here as well.

>>42447288
>where we have electrons orbiting a nucleus
That is wrong and hilariouslly it is in your mind based on an outdated scientific model.
You - the person getting so pissed at people claiming small things are dense because it fits their model - are spouting complete idiocy about "orbiting electrons" because that is what an old, outdated model showed you.

>>42444301
i sympathize with the contrarian thinking that many flat earthers exhibit... but i will never see the flat earth community as anything other than a cult of complete retardation. their arguments are incredibly dumb and ignorant

>>42447479
If you actually research it, they say on the surface that that's not how it really works and that it's more like a probability cloud, and yet you can find them talking about how it has a pattern (of an orbit) and an orbital spin direction.

>>42447459
a lot of things can make the dousing rod experiment move
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/2yighy/not_just_for_smart_dead_guys_recreating_the/
and it's also just inconsistent because there should be many more gravity-proving experiments on Earth if gravity is this easy to measure and yet we only have this setup. otherwise it's 'impossible' to do

>>42448957
>that's not how it really works
correct
>it has a pattern
Yes. A probability cloud.
> an orbital spin direction.
Spin has nothing to do with the electron orbiting. you are pathetically reaching and only showing your ignorance.

File: flat earth schiehallion.jpg (169 KB, 1080x1080)

169 KB JPG

>>42448989
>yet we only have this setup.
Not true. I did the Schiehallion myself on a mountain near Tucson. It has been recreated many times, in many locations.

>>42448957
both models are wrong and useful in their own ways. the orbital model is best for conceptualizing the energy states of electrons, and, also the relative scales of the nucleus and electrons compared to the entire atom as a whole (to some extent). the probability cloud model is much more useful in most other aspects. the probability clouds don't look like orbits and i don't know what other pattern you may be referring to. there is also explicitly no orbiting motion. "spin" is an extremely misleading name. its nothing more than a property, in the same way they assign colors (red, blue, green) to quarks despite color having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual concept. also, you dont need to "actually research it" because the probability cloud model is pretty commonly taught nowadays and it takes one google search to figure out electrons aren't literal balls flying on orbits

>>42448989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-_GBymrck
>inconsistent
we can use high precision set-ups because gravity is really weak
>we only have this setup. otherwise it's 'impossible' to do
says who?

>>42449024
See timestamp 1:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7r0-F5dY0Q&t=115s

>>42449079
Yeah I watched that before. He couldn't replicate it at home (odd!), and then he went to a place where they had him place the balls after the fact and made the whole setup shake and then of course you see movement. There are so many variables to this that it just seems silly, but I'd at least like a video/paper of someone repeating the experiment minimum 100 times and showing that they get consistent results of movement speed and direction.
Also on the other side of things you have experiments that claim to prove the rotation of the earth because they claim Earth's rotation acts on a body hanging from a ceiling. So even that as an example of something that could be causing movement is there.
but yeah at least repeat the experiment 100x in a controlled environment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slgb5U-OqFM
i don't want to derail too much but I got this from another /x/ post and I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was telling the truth

>>42449123
you mean that they call it "orbital"? i agree the naming of this stuff is extremely misleading however there is nothing orbiting. they just inherited the naming from the older default orbit model

>>42449030
Oh, thanks for the info. Will check out and revisit.

>>42449137
>I watched that before
very nice. its my favourite video on cavendish
>He couldn't replicate it at home
exactly. he couldnt replicate it at home. if it was obvious, the greeks would have had this figured out already.
>(odd!)
isolating variables is a really obnoxious process.
>made the whole setup shake
good point. i think you can still know that its not the shaking because you will never see the dot go off all the way to the right or left which is what you would expect if the completely random shaking was to blame. you will always see it moving neatly between the two predefined points. so they know its not the shaking thats causing it. i would have to ask them to know exactly how they correct for that but yeah its possible if you wanna believe that.
>paper of someone repeating the experiment minimum 100 times
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/ae570f/pdf
apparently it was published just a few months ago which is cool. i think they did get somewhat inconsistent results which is cool but i didn't really read the paper
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slgb5U-OqFM
illuminati is cool too

>>42449144
i think the mountain is a bit sus because mountains have a ton of electrically charged metals and minerals etc but overall a respectable experiment

1) I speak truly, not falsely, certainly and most truly
2) These things below with those above and those with these join forces again so that they produce a single thing the most wonderful of all.
3)And as the whole universe was brought forth from one by the word of one GOD, so also all things are regenerated perpetually from this one according to the disposition of Nature.
4) It has the Sun for father and the Moon for mother:
5) it is carried by the air as if in a womb, it is nursed by the earth.
6) It is the cause, this, of all perfection of all things throughout the universe.
6a) This will attain the highest perfection of powers
7) if it shall be reduced into earth
7a) Distribute here the earth and there the fire, thin out the density of this the suavest (suavissima) thing of all.
8)Ascend with the greatest sagacity of genius from the earth into the sky, and thence descend again to the earth, and recognise that the forces of things above and of things below are one,
9) so as to posses the glory of the whole world- and beyond this man of abject fate may have nothing further.
10)This thing itself presently comes forth stronger by reasons of this fortitude: it subdues all bodies surely, whether tenuous or solid, by penetrating them.
11a) And so everything whatsoever that the world contains was created.
12) Hence admirable works are accomplished which are instituted (carried out- instituuntur) according to the same mode.
13) To me therefor the name of Hermes Trismegistus has been awarded because I am discovered as the Teacher of the three parts of the wisdom of the world.
14) These then are the considerations which I have concluded ought to be written down concerning the readiest operations of the Chymic art.
[Davis 1926: 875 slightly modified.]
Emerald Tablet of Hermes