!agree

Magnetic attraction is only stronger than smaller objects. I doubt a magnet can compare the the gravitational pull of a neutron star.

To say magnetic attraction is stronger, that is just false. It differs from the strength of the magnet and the mass of the object.

That was towards Steve’s comment

Relatively yes it is the weakest. Although I’m not sure if the “weak nuclear force” is stronger or not though.

The space station is real. You can see it with the naked eye some nights, there is even a website that can tell you where to look for it.

Rockets work off of impulse forces through diverging ducts and converging nozzles, the don’t require are around them to work. That’s why they carry liquid oxygen in one of their tanks.

@Superiorna_Artiljerija What about rockets?

Why would it need one?

An atmosphere I mean

It is wrong.

It’s the same principle as blowing up a balloon and letting the nozzle in the back go. It just creates a reaction force that propels it forward. No need for air to be around it.

They are thinking of planes, which do need an atmosphere to fly.

Lol! 😂

You’ve been banned too?

Yeah they don’t like opposition there

I’m sure they have some wacky theory. They just banned my IP entirely, I need to use Tor or something to get in there now.

That’s a good idea!

@Citizen Z You need to do the experiment with more than two wells.

I believe they are currently doing a really big one
https://eratosthenes.ea.gr

23 rd of September

Polaris does change position, it’s like 40 arc seconds off of true north or something like that.

You can watch it make a full rotation in 24hrs.

It’s 40 arc seconds from true north, but it still moves at 15 degrees per hour. It’s just hard to tell as the movement so small.

Polaris is moving through the universe, but so are we. The distance it has moved in the last 2000 years is almost negligible compared to the space between stars. It take millions to billions of years to notice significant change.

@anon415454+4646 what difference does that make? It’s still rotating about the same point.

@rivenator12113 That’s according to our best estimates and calculations by people who spent a lifetime studying this.

Sure? It doesn’t change the fact that there are have been millions of these guys through history, are we to believe they are all mistaken?

The distances between stars is incomprehensible, to see any significant change in the apparent location of stars, it takes a LONG time. The change from their current moments is so incomprehensible that you wouldn’t be able to measure it outside of a significant amount of time

@anon415454+4646 Why is that?

@rivenator12113 That makes no sense

Like the sun?

@rivenator12113 Again, that makes no sense. Might wanna recheck your math.

@anon415454+4646 It is! They know the type and luminosity expected from it though, with that, that can use that as a reference for similar types of stars.

@rivenator12113 NASA has never said Polaris is traveling at the speed of light

@anon415454+4646 They can measure it

@anon415454+4646 They can reference it from our own star.

@rivenator12113 That is not correct whatsoever.

@anon415454+4646 what do you mean how? Like how to they calculate the lumens?

@anon415454+4646 You can use a spectrograph to determine the elements in the star. The light waves reflected back with give you its composition (this has been tested on earth already). As for luminosity, if we know the distance to the sun, and we know it’s luminosity, than we can look at another similar star and calculate distance by the rate the decrease in brightness or what not.

@rivenator12113 You just said it’s 323 lightyears away. A massive object that far and bright won’t appear to move much.

@rivenator12113 It makes plenty of sense. And no, that does not mean Polaris is traveling at the speed of light.

@anon415454+4646 they measure the light waves coming from it. The more redshifted it is, the further away it is.

@rivenator12113 I honestly don’t see the issue. It’s 323 light years away and relatively stationary, why does it need to be going faster?

@anon415454+4646 Spectrograph. If they can tell what is fusing in the start, they know what colour they should see.

@rivenator12113 Again, there’s no issue here. It’s behaving like it should.

Why should we?

@anon415454+4646 Spectrograph

@rivenator12113 Picture this. If you were swinging next to a boat, and it moved ten feet in front of you left to right, it’s quite noticeable. Now have that same boat about 4 miles away and move the same distance, it will be hardly noticeable.

Swimming*

Now if you swing ten feet to the right, the boat will still appear in the same location, because it’s so far. Ten feet compared to four miles is nothing. As is the diameter of earths orbit compared to 323 light years.

Swim*

Exactly!

Why? It makes perfect sense. We hardly see any movement from it because of its incomprehensible distance.

Why would it need to be moving at insane speed?

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement

This should explain it

@anon415454+4646 You are correct, it would be at a different location. The light that hits us is from a younger star. That only means we are looking at its past motion and composition.

They wouldn’t, neither would the ones on the South Pole either.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Long-exposure_photography

There’s the South Pole

They wouldn’t be elliptical, our rotation is 15 degrees per hour. Compared to our velocity around the sun, there isn’t much distortion, none that you could see anyways.

Perception makes it disappear from the bottom up?

So if I was held upside down, would it disappear from the top down?

Then why is it from the bottom up?

@rivenator12113 Why couldn’t you measure gravity?

@Citizen Z there are no angles on the horizon of the open ocean

@rivenator12113 What’s the force that is applied to the water by the soccer ball?

@Citizen Z That still doesn’t explain it disappearing from the top down

@rivenator12113 What does bouyancy have to do with it.

Too bad I guess.

Who’s belittle who?

@rivenator12113 Gravity is a centripetal force

@Citizen Z It asked you why we see ships disappear bottom up, all you gave me was perspective and lensing, that isn’t an explanation.

@rivenator12113 What qualifies as proof to you?

@rivenator12113 What causes objects to fall down?

Water finds it’s level?

Appealing to empirical evidence

Movement in the sky can tell you what is possibly moving.

We see almost everything moving at 15 degrees per hour

You are trying to use philosophy debate rules for a scientific debate.... doesn’t work like that

This is reality, not philosophy.

@rivenator12113 And you are trying to use the “appeal to authority or majority fallacy” to ignore the fact that there have been thousands of people who have conducted these experiments and came to the same conclusion.

@rivenator12113 Im going to believe empirical facts, not perception

Again, you are conflating philosophy with science

Science doesn’t care about the “laws of logic”, otherwise, quantum theory would be disregarded.

@rivenator12113 Again, the “laws of logic” are for philosophy. Logically, quantum theory makes no sense and it full of “fallacies”, yet has made some of the most accurate predictions to date.

@rivenator12113 Are you familiar with quantum theory?

@rivenator12113 Yet quantum theory is FULL of logical fallacies.

@rivenator12113 Reality is under no obligation to adhere to the “laws of logic”.

It also doesn’t explain why you can’t see the sun 24/7

How can you the stars that are further away, yet can’t see the sun 24/7?

The lights of the stars are still further away

I doubt they know what angular size is.

Until I see a plausible/ working model from FE, you can keep your red pill

Didn’t any BTFO’ing

Documentaries?

You can support the 1A while being against misinformation

Because it’s misinformation. It’s fooling gullible people.