ทวีตที่ปักหมุด
In an ecosphere of bad or absent information, the best way to analyze the absence of evidence is to notice the messaging of those who operate as if there is certainty.
English
Rick Patton
29.7K posts
Rick Patton
@TheRickPatton
Arizona Alum | Physics | Space Technologist | Tucson native | Liberty-Minded, Yet Fed Up | #BearDown 🐻⬇️
Tucson, AZ เข้าร่วม Nisan 2014
1.2K กำลังติดตาม663 ผู้ติดตาม
@SkyNews @NathanOgunniyi @skygillian "We're wasting technology"
No, you utter moron - we are CREATING technology in pursuit of this.
English
"We're wasting all this energy, time, technology and thought going somewhere where there's nothing alive."
Guardian columnist Zoe Williams criticises the Artemis II moon mission in a discussion w/ @NathanOgunniyi and @SkyGillian on The Wrap.
trib.al/Rx0iR33 📺 Sky 501
English
@ClueHeywood I love the Michigan burger being the most boring, cold soup option on the menu
English
we are the fanciest and most expensive burger at this pub, Bear Down
English
@totolitoto2 @jobber_phil @ManaByte You're way over his head here. He thinks radio waves are sound waves
English
@jobber_phil @ManaByte "light from a laser takes 3 seconds to reach to moon"
Wrong.
1.2 to 1.35 seconds.
"a radio wave travels slower than light"
Wrong.
In vacuum, c is independant of the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave.
English
@ExileSeal @jobber_phil @ManaByte He thinks radio waves are sound waves because the radio in his vehicle plays sounds
English
@jobber_phil @ManaByte The moon is about 1.3 light seconds away from the earth but for light to reach the moon and reflect back is about 2.6 seconds. Not sure why you think radio waves are slower though? If you're curious Coursera, MIT, Yale, and others have free classes you can take to learn more!
English
@Athol94519002 @ChrisThomasII1 @JacobzWolf18 @ChrisMartzWX The two photos he's comparing are not 12 hours apart. They're seconds apart. They're demonstrating the difference in outcomes when you use different camera settings for the same scene.
English
Dimitri Revolt@reality_revolt_
You’re shown carefully selected images, same clouds, same angle, supposedly 12 hours apart, and no one stops to think. A skydiver can film everything in high quality, but somehow a multi-billion dollar mission gives you blurry, choppy footage, and people just accept it. They show you fragments, they distract you when it matters, and as long as no one questions it, the illusion holds realityrevolt.com
QME
They took a long exposure.
It’s essentially the same thing I do with my iPhone to take pictures at night.
Brian Eastwood@BrianEastwoodx
Can the photographers in the room explain to me how the sun is behind the earth in the photo but the dark side that is this image is somehow very well lit. This doesn’t make sense. You can clearly tell the sun is just over the horizon on the bottom right of the earth in this photo.
English
@ChrisThomasII1 @Athol94519002 @JacobzWolf18 @ChrisMartzWX 1. Turn your phone upside down
2. Take a picture
3. Turn your phone right side up
4. Look at picture
5. Picture is upside down
6. Therefore your picture is fake?
English
@TheRickPatton @Athol94519002 @JacobzWolf18 @ChrisMartzWX Simply shouldnt have to, but simply your simple brain cannot compute how asinine it is for you to accept this picture as logical.
English
@akafaceUS Wow. Computer generated is very clear to see.
They cant even make it look real. What a joke. Waste if tax dollars
English
@SKINNYTALLS @syntheria313056 @FemboyDCS @MrVanOosterhout @memeticsisyphus Because they're not throwing a bunch of matter off their wings
English
English
@FemboyDCS @MrVanOosterhout @memeticsisyphus Im asking you how it works and your reply is that you want me to draw you diagrams on how I think it works after saying that I dont think it works? Crazy.
English
@kvaughn @naomirwolf Love people who open the window during the marvel of flight!!
English
@kvaughn @naomirwolf You asked how the lighting makes sense. I'm explaining that the Earth was lit by Moonshine, and the camera used high exposure settings so that they capture enough photons to make a bright Earth. It's why the stars are visible in this photo
English
@TheRickPatton @naomirwolf Those cinder block back yard fences remind me of my childhood, i can feel the dry heat radiating. Thank you for sharing this photo.
I understand over exposure but what i dont understand is how they justify the alignment.
English
@ramzpaul This real too?
WayneTech SPFX®️@WayneTechSPFX
I keep looking for things to prove me wrong by NASA. Yet, they never cease to disappoint The Artemis crew finally speaks saying they will travel to the dark side of the moon, and chewing gum while he speaks. Chewing gum in space? That's considered an unwise choice. For the unaware: Chewing gum in a rocket or in space is generally considered unwise due to satety risks posed by microgravity, although it has historicallv been allowed in limited circumstances. While technically possible to chew. the risks of the gum becoming a floating hazard or affecting the crew's oral health in microgravity make it a poor choice. Studies suggest that microgravity already causes dry mouth and can exacerbate gum inflammation and bone loss. Extensive chewing might aggravate these conditions. Isn't it hot in Bermuda this time of year?🤣
English
Weird. You know what else weird? I took a pic of my front yard in the Ozarks. The place is teeming with all sorts of insects and spiders, but you could not see one in the picture!
Mr. Whale@CryptoWhale
🌍 | Another photo of Earth released by NASA. And once again: no traces of airplanes, ships, or even satellites. Even though around 10,000-11,000 active satellitesare orbiting our planet, and more than 30,000 orbital objects are being tracked. And still, in these images- nothing.
English
You would 100% be able to see the satellites and the chemtrails/Contrails from aircraft. If theyre noticeable from ground level at 30000 feet with the naked eye, they'd be visible in "space." Satellites are also visible, especially at night/darkness with the naked eye from ground level. There would be no reason whatsoever you couldn't see the tens of thousands of them from this perspective in space. It's a joke. Also, tapping the sign.
English
@kvaughn @naomirwolf The photo on the right is taken with a very high ISO setting on the camera, and a longer exposure time. Just like what you might do on your phone camera to take a photo at night.
Here's one such example I took a few months ago.
English
@kvaughn @naomirwolf This is the nighttime side of Earth. The photo was taken at approx 00:30 UTC.
At this time, the moon was near-full; the earth is dimly lit by the bright moon (aka "Moonshine"). It's you walking around in the forest at night, navigating by moonlight.
English
@kvaughn @naomirwolf The sun is behind the Earth. The bright dot you see in the lower right is Venus.
English
@TheRickPatton @naomirwolf Thats right! Optics, my bad!
You look at these two images and think; ‘this makes sense’?
I love reading too
English
@kvaughn @naomirwolf I work in optics, and I read so I understand the major reason why the latest image might look different.
Left: daytime Earth, lit by sun
Right: nighttime Earth, lit by moon, completely different exposure settings
Why would you expect little minutia to look similar?
English
@TheRickPatton @naomirwolf You work in film, doesnt this image raise some questions?
English
@naomirwolf You're STILL crashing out?
x.com/i/status/20402…
Rick Patton@TheRickPatton
@naomirwolf You've been crashing out on this all day, and you still haven't acknowledged that the Artemis photo is showing you the night side of the Earth. Why would you even be tempted to expect them to look identical?
English
But can’t everyone see how we messed up the air, the all-important layer of our atmosphere ?
The Persian Jewess@persianjewess
NASA shares the first photo of Earth from outer space taken in 54 years. On the left is a 1972 photo which shows Earth during the day while the sun is shining on it. On the right is the 2026 photo which shows Earth at night lit up by the moon. Godspeed to Artemis II. 🚀🧑🚀
English
@BufodJustice @ChrisMartzWX No. A future mission (and the Apollo missions) would execute a burn once they reach the moon to circularize their orbit around the moon
English
For those wondering why Artemis II isn’t flying straight to the moon, it’s because the moon revolves around the Earth. The math has to be just right so they don’t miss and can safely go around the moon and return home.
Really neat visualization here. 🚀 🌖
Michael Antonelli@BullandBaird
Imagine the math required to make this guess and aim 4 people at a point in space
English