Therion Ware #FBPPR #FBPE #HPLHS

Oh look. Another heroic attempt to overthrow celestial mechanics using a meme and the spatial reasoning skills of a startled goldfish. The claim, for those still awake, is that if Earth really orbited the Sun we would see "100% different stars" six months apart. One almost admires the theatrical certainty. Sadly the universe is not a cosy village green where moving a few steps gives you a completely new skyline. The nearest stars are absurdly, offensively far away. Earth’s orbital diameter, a mere 300 million kilometres, is basically nothing on that scale. It is like shuffling sideways on a tennis court and expecting the Alps to vanish behind a bus stop. What actually happens is tediously consistent with reality. As Earth goes round the Sun, the night side points in different directions through the year. Hence the familiar seasonal constellations. Orion struts about in winter evenings, then politely vacates the stage for summer patterns like Scorpius. This is not some awkward anomaly for heliocentrism. It is exactly what any halfway literate bit of spherical geometry predicts. The sky is not changing because we have moved to a new stellar postcode. It is changing because we are looking in a different direction. And then there is stellar parallax, that tiresome nineteenth-century discovery which refuses to die. Nearby stars do shift slightly over the year. Very slightly. Because they are unimaginably distant. The meme’s author treats this as a flaw in the model rather than the rather obvious implication that space is vast beyond the scale of their diagram. The cosmos, inconveniently, does not resize itself to fit a social media graphic. So what we are left with is not an argument but a kind of jpeg-based sulk. A vague gesture at intuition, dressed up as revelation. It is the astronomical equivalent of insisting the ocean must be shallow because you cannot see the bottom from the pier. One could laugh, if it were not quite so depressingly predictable.

Go ahead. Present your basic reasoning and vision I can’t wait to be a glober again. 🤔

@ayeshavisk41781 The key is 042.

Crack the password let's try if you're genius 0.0001 % will crack the password

Ah yes. The venerable flat-earth manoeuvre of triumphantly announcing a GCSE physics fact as though one has just personally overthrown Newton from his throne. "Even at constant speed there is circular acceleration." Splendid. Gold star. The universe remains unmoved. The problem, as ever, is that this statement is then waved about like a mystical talisman, as though merely uttering the word "acceleration" conjures images of passengers being hurled across continents like loose crockery in a tumble dryer. Uniform rotation, however, is tediously uncinematic. The centripetal acceleration associated with Earth’s rotation is a pathetic whisper compared with gravity - a few hundredths of a metre per second squared. Roughly three-tenths of one per cent of g. Hardly the stuff of existential terror. If this is the catastrophic force that is supposed to expose the spherical conspiracy, it is doing a remarkably discreet job. What we are actually being shown is the usual prop-theatre. A small object spinning briskly on a tabletop is treated as an analogue for a planet rotating once every twenty-three hours and fifty-six minutes. Scale, naturally, is treated as an optional extra. Numbers are unwelcome guests. Quantitative reasoning is quietly locked in the cellar with the rest of the inconvenient evidence. And, predictably, the post offers no model, no calculation, no engagement with the tiresome body of observations that stubbornly behave as though Earth is rotating. No Coriolis deflection. No Foucault pendulum. No inertial navigation systems calmly logging rotation without hysteria. No satellite orbital mechanics refusing to collapse into flat-earth melodrama. Just a slogan, a spinning toy, and the hope that the audience will confuse theatrical implication with physical argument. In short, this is not physics. It is vibes in a lab coat. The intellectual level is roughly "look, thing spin". One might admire the confidence, if not the comprehension.

Even at constant speed there is circular acceleration

@JadeAtrophis Peter Woldemar Abian, no less!

Ah splendid. Another masterpiece from the Department of Thermodynamic Illiteracy, where atmospheric physics is apparently taught by people who think “temperature” means “how quickly you burst into flames”. The meme’s central blunder is the charming assumption that 2000°C automatically implies intense heating power. It does not. In the thermosphere the gas is so vanishingly thin that although individual molecules can possess very high kinetic energy, there are almost no molecules there to transfer that energy. Temperature in this context measures particle velocity, not bulk heat content. It is the difference between being tapped by a single hyperactive gnat and being shoved into a furnace. One is technically energetic. The other cooks you. Satellites therefore do not obligingly liquefy like fondue because heat transfer depends on density and flux, not on a headline temperature figure ripped from a GCSE revision card and waved about like a theological proof. The thermosphere has densities millions of times lower than sea-level air. Spacecraft there are far more concerned with solar radiation, micrometeoroids, and orbital decay drag than with some imaginary cosmic blast-furnace. The “tinfoil satellite” trope is equally revealing. Satellites are constructed from aluminium alloys, composites, multilayer insulation, ceramics, and carefully engineered thermal systems. They are designed precisely to handle radiative heating and cooling in vacuum. The meme treats orbital engineering as though NASA launches crisp packets wrapped round a toaster. What we are really witnessing here is a category error so enthusiastic it ought to be issued with a warning label. It confuses thermodynamic temperature with sensible heat, vacuum with atmosphere, and cartoon intuition with actual physics. The result is not a devastating critique of space science. It is an accidental satire of how badly one can misunderstand basic physical concepts while feeling triumphantly sceptical about satellites. In short, this is not a clever paradox exposing a flaw in mainstream science. It is a brightly coloured confession that the author has never grasped how heat transfer works outside a kitchen.

Isn't that an unsubstantiated claim of 500 witnesses made by a Paul of Tarsus, who never met the principle actor? Paul himself does not list the names of the 500 witnesses. He did not claim to have personally met this group. His statement is generally understood by historians as reporting an early Christian tradition or creed he had received. No other New Testament text independently mentions this specific mass appearance.

500+ eyewitnesses. These facts cannot be denied.

@sweet_nector1 Knuckle-dusters, also known as knucks, brass knucks, knuckle busters, knuckle irons, paperweights, and knuckle guards...

People keep guessing, but no one gets it right. Do you know what this is?

That's quite an interesting question. Whether mathematics is a language or a tool has the slightly comic quality of asking whether oxygen is better described as something one breathes or something that keeps one alive. It is both, and the attempt to force a tidy classification usually tells us more about philosophical temperament than about mathematics itself. On the one hand, mathematics plainly behaves like a language. It has symbols, grammar, rules of transformation, and a shared expectation that certain strings of marks actually mean something. When physicists claim to have “written down” a law of nature, they are not being metaphorical in any trivial sense. They are using mathematics as a medium of articulation, a way of saying what cannot be said clearly in ordinary prose. Natural language is wonderfully supple for gossip, poetry, and parliamentary evasions. It is rather less precise when one wishes to describe spacetime curvature or quantum amplitudes. Mathematics supplies a grammar for reality where English, Arabic, or Mandarin begin to wheeze. Yet mathematics is also unmistakably a tool, and often treated as such by those who rely on it most heavily. Engineers reach for equations in the same spirit that a carpenter reaches for a level. Economists construct models not because they are aesthetically enchanting but because they might help avoid fiscal catastrophe. Computer scientists deploy formal logic to prevent machines from doing something catastrophically stupid at scale. In these contexts mathematics is not contemplated as a sublime linguistic achievement. It is wielded as cognitive machinery, a way of extending fragile human intuition into domains where guesswork would be fatal. The awkward philosophical twist is that mathematics does not feel entirely like an invented instrument. Tools are normally contingent and replaceable. Mathematics has a curious air of inevitability. Many mathematicians speak, with only mild embarrassment, of “discovering” structures rather than inventing them. The Pythagorean theorem does not appear to be a cultural fashion like powdered wigs or the Charleston. It feels more like a geological feature of the logical landscape. This has encouraged Platonist interpretations in which mathematics is seen as a kind of abstract territory into which the human mind occasionally wanders, blinking and slightly overwhelmed. Others, understandably wary of metaphysical real estate, emphasise that mathematics is still a human construction - a staggeringly refined symbolic technology shaped by evolutionary pressures, practical needs, and the deep constraints of logic. On this view its universality reflects shared cognitive architecture and the stable regularities of the physical world, not the existence of a celestial library of eternal theorems. Mathematics works because we have painstakingly engineered it to work, and because reality has proved obligingly mathematical enough to reward the effort. In lived intellectual practice, however, this distinction tends to dissolve. Mathematics is the language in which insight is framed and communicated, and the tool by which that insight is made to do work in the world. One might say it is a language whose sentences can build bridges, launch spacecraft, and occasionally bankrupt entire nations. Its humanising feature is precisely this duality. It is at once an expression of our desire to understand and an instrument of our need to survive. We speak it in order to think clearly, and we use it in order not to fall off the conceptual equivalent of cliffs. But, if mathematics is a language, how might one say "fuck off" in that language? Perhaps lim (credibility) → 0, or domain error, or undefined behaviour...

Should mathematics be considered a language or a tool? ✍️

The sheep greeting me at sunrise today here in Glastonbury.

It was busy on Glastonbury Tor this evening at sunset. It was so lovely to see the town so busy today with people enjoying the sunshine. Spring has definitely arrived.

Nice to see a few of my Equinox sunrise photographs in today's National Press. It is so nice to see them in print. (Slight mix up with credits but they are mine).

Golden hues and layers in the landscape. A slightly misty start to the day here in Glastonbury. Photograph taken from Glastonbury Tor this morning.

What the jury has effectively said is that Musk’s 2022 Twitter saga was not merely the usual Silicon Valley performance art - a billionaire live-tweeting his inner monologue while the markets politely pretend this is normal adult behaviour - but something with measurable legal consequences. In plain English, they concluded that publicly casting doubt on the deal and on Twitter’s bot figures while attempting to wriggle the purchase price down crossed the line from aggressive negotiation into investor deception. Not every claim against him was vindicated, and the grand conspiracy narrative was only partly endorsed, but the central point stands: if you possess the social-media equivalent of a financial thermonuclear device, you are not at liberty to fire it into the equity markets on a whim and later insist it was merely banter. The ruling is less a morality play about Musk personally and more a reminder that securities law still exists, however unfashionable that may be in an era where market-moving statements are sometimes delivered in meme format.

#ApartheidClyde #ElonMusk #ComradeMusk #MoscowMusk #SpaceKaren #SissySpaceX #Tesla #BoycottTesla #Swasticar #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinClientList #EpsteinList #PedoMusk @elonmusk @tesla

So, will Chuck Norris rise again in one day?

@Anxurious1 Looks more like SCP than the Esoteric Order of Dagon.

@TherionWare What is this STALKER?

Too late...

Hmm 😒 🤔?¿

@soulwhisper85 I expect an astronomer was consulted.

???

Happy Spring Equinox/Ostara. The balance of light and dark. Photograph taken this morning in Glastonbury. #Spring2026 #springequinox #ostara

Happy Spring Equinox. Sunrise from Glastonbury Tor. #Spring2026 #springequinox

@Keetb999k Erm, whose "popular belief"? Which for some reason reminds me of zmodem sliding windows...

Yup 99 percent, cell towers, signal towers and such