CuriousNeuron

Passionate about the universe and everything that’s in it.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

People don’t become conspiracy theorists due to a lack of facts. They do it because the theory fills an emotional void. It offers safety, a community, a clear enemy, and a sense of unique importance. Against those psychological survival mechanisms, no telescope stands a chance.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@AntiDisinfo86 @space_audits No, based on predictive mathematics. We use those exact laws of gravity to land rovers on Mars today. If orbital mechanics were just a "feeling," rockets would fall out of the sky.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@ke86108 @pamuszynski @space_audits True, they don't change the shape of the Earth. But the fact that you keep replying without a single substantive argument proves they do do something else: immensely annoy conspiracy thinkers.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@AntiDisinfo86 @space_audits The Copernican principle won because the geometry works and the physics are predictable.

Calling basic orbital mechanics a "cult of scientism" doesn't change the telemetry of a satellite or the trajectory of a rocket.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@indio007 @AntiDisinfo86 @space_audits Copernicus and Kepler absolutely wrote about mutual physical attraction. Kepler even used it to predict the tides.

But please, tell me more about how a 17th century scientist's personal mysticism somehow invalidates the fact that the sun holds 99.8% of the mass.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@ke86108 @pamuszynski @space_audits Calling me a troll won't fix your map. Notice how you've replied three times now and still haven't explained how 24 hour polar darkness works?

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@ke86108 @pamuszynski @space_audits Geometry isn't an opinion. The universe doesn't care what you choose to believe in.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@ke86108 @pamuszynski @space_audits Shifting the focus to 'crying' is a classic move when you realize you can't actually debunk the science. Screaming louder doesn't change geometry.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@505Cali2 Well, isn't that something.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@ke86108 @pamuszynski @space_audits Denying and swearing doesn't alter the reality of the situation.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@pamuszynski @space_audits Also: 24 hours of darkness at the poles is ironclad proof of a globe Earth.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@did8hurtu https://t.co/VAwHUd3RNg

[Earthly Skeptic @earthlyskeptick]

My challenge to @space_audits.

You said: “It’s an untested hypothesis that the ground is also a globe.

Wrong! And here’s why.

Here’s an observation valid everywhere in the northern hemisphere. The elevation angle to Polaris changes by 1°/69 mile. I have made this observation for Polaris and the Sun myself (data available on my twitter/X profile). Recently, you even accepted this relationship and used it to compute the 6,210 mile distance between the North Pole and the equator.

This 1°/69 mile observation is a relationship between an angle in the sky (1°) and a distance traveled on the ground (69 mile). The only geometry that explains it is a spherical Earth with Polaris located far away compared to terrestrial distances.

There is no flat Earth geometry that explains 1°/69 mile.

If you disagree, produce a geometrical model in which Earth is flat and on which the elevation angle to Polaris or any celestial body changes by 1°/69 mile everywhere. This naturally leads to Polaris being below the horizon (negative elevation above) at some places on Earth. Your model should be consistent (same geometry, same radius everywhere) and should not include any ad hoc optical or other physical effects, unless they are modeled from first principles and also included in your celestial theodolite calculation.

Challenge?

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@TheTwilightDome Why won't you point a telescope at the sky and track the (non)existence of a satellite to expose the "lie"?

Simple: you’d rather scroll through memes for confirmation than risk seeing the math actually work out.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

4/4 So why don't conspiracy theorists do it? Because they aren't looking for the truth; they are looking for validation. To them, a dry, factual answer from a real engineer ruins the exciting sci-fi fantasy they’ve built up. It's easier to tweet than to learn.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

1/4 "Truthseekers" love to claim that space agencies like NASA or ESA are shadowy, untouchable fortresses hiding secrets from the public. But the reality? Getting in touch with real space scientists and engineers is historically easy.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

3/4 Furthermore, many space scientists double as university professors. They are highly passionate academics who regularly reply to emails from the public. The barrier to entry to actually interview an expert is incredibly low if you genuinely want to learn.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@TrevorL415 That "Tabloid of Lies" post is actually 100% true.

In Jan 1997, Børge Ousland finished the 1st solo crossing of Antarctica at Scott Base. It just happened to be the base’s 40th anniversary, so Sir Edmund Hillary was there. They met, hit it off, and Ousland flew back with him.

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@Inventionaire @SunWeatherMan Furthernore, waves travel through rock, liquid, and gas/plasma alike. Helioseismology uses those acoustic waves to scan the Sun.

Nice try using word games to avoid the 100+ years of butterfly diagram data yet again 😏

[CuriousNeuron @StillBuffering2]

@Inventionaire @SunWeatherMan Lol…you're retreating into semantics because your actual arguments are crushed. Seismology doesn’t exclude acoustics, seismology IS the application of acoustic waves to map the interior of a celestial body.