JustAPerspective t1_jeg3k7p wrote

>This discussion is about Disney cheating subsistence farmers out of their homesteads. Try to keep up.

We mentioned rich white dudes who form corporations - your effort to focus a discussion on something irrelevant to the topic appears willful, so it's simple to read the thread & see how full of shit you are. U.S.A., you are.


JustAPerspective t1_j9zepko wrote

>I mean, aren't gas giants just "failed" stars that never got big enough?

No one knows.

See, the article talks about how previous theories are no longer necessarily applicable - which means everything we've been assuming about this stuff now gets rechecked, because right there in front of us is proof that what we believed before... ain't so.

It disrupts the presumed accuracy of every model that has relied on the previous interpretation. All speculation that relied on the previous theories for validity is now suspect, and how much of a rewrite will need to happen is yet to be determined.

Which is a constant in all facets of science, just btw. Every discovery, from the coronal loop optical illusion theory to the actual diameter of Terra's atmosphere, to the true electromagnetic strength of Sol, even the existence of tectonic plates... are updates to what humans believed was completely true.

"Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow." - K, MIB

Some minds refuse to accept new data if it contradicts what they believed before. Other minds are eager to accept and integrate new concepts. Reckon we're all finding the happy balance between both guidances?

Unsolicited Advice: Don't worry about the emotional stability of internet randos - if they're adults, they know it's their job to regulate their own feelings. If they're children, they'll blame you whenever they're unhappy anyway.

Your zen should be far more precious than internet rando opinions. 🖖


JustAPerspective t1_j9zbcnj wrote


The idea that human theories of the universe have any inherent credibility is patently absurd - like an infant in the womb asserting how things work on other continents, based solely on their limited experiences under vastly different circumstances.

Everything humans "know" is a guess that might be wrong.

Every mistake we discover is an opportunity to celebrate how many more options there truly are in the universe.


JustAPerspective t1_j6paw7w wrote

>I don't think we are any more than the electric and chemical signals in our brains, simply because there isn't anything else that we can point at yet.


The limitation of the practice is that it presumes anything humans haven't discovered yet isn't relevant... while simultaneously refusing to allow for what people haven't learned.

Yet science is merely observation of what is - any incomplete observation will be suspect in its conclusions due to the variables not yet grasped.

That the atoms comprising your system shift by 98% annually indicates that - at some level - what makes up "you" is not physical.

Which leaves a lot of room for learning.


JustAPerspective t1_j64obtr wrote

It's easy to be confident when there's limited information available.

While what you're saying is highly probable based on our current understanding, these two phenomena may be related - it is not absolute. Assumption precludes, and oft forgets, discovery.


JustAPerspective t1_j63vchz wrote

>It’s not a “magnetic engine” in any relevant sense.

Preposterous. Relevance is a matter of perspective; your prerequisite appears to be something along the lines of "if it ain't human-made it ain't real"?


>It’s a huge rotating ball of iron and nickel and conservation of angular momentum is a thing! Truly ludicrous amounts of momentum would have to be transferred somewhere else for it to stop rotating.

...humans think.
See, until the 1960s, the existence of the core-as-a-core wasn't known. So the "obvious reality" you're assuming is younger than television.


>(Now, to be fair, a mechanism does exist that slowly bleeds off Earth’s rotational momentum, and has done so for billions of years: the moon and its tidal forces. In the far future Earth would become tidally locked with the moon, and rotate very slowly, if the sun didn’t become a red giant first.)

Yes, that's how an engine operates on a timescale different from the ones humans focus on. You came that closet to getting the idea.


> But somehow only slowing down the core? That would require magic.)

Magic is, by definition, merely reality: Magic is defined as a "supernatural force which influences reality" and "supernatural" merely means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" - and the "laws of nature" were written by humans who do not know everything.

See the one constant limitation here? Human understanding.


>Anyway, my use of “absolutely” should be taken in the context of the discussion, just like everything else.

No - your use of a word will be taken at face value - the only use words have in true information exchange. If you are unable to use the words accurately or sincerely, that's your concern to manage.


JustAPerspective t1_j63ge95 wrote

>There’s absolutely nothing that could make it actually

The limits of human imagination in no way apply to reality.

Also, a magnetic engine can cease to function rather quickly when specific criteria change, so you may want to throttle back on "Absolutely".


JustAPerspective t1_j61kq5f wrote

There's even supposition it may reverse direction, and researchers are looking for evidence of past impacts.

Thing is, humans didn't even know the core-as-a-core existed 60 years ago. They were still thinking that all the surface stuff was one big shell. So while it's fascinating to learn new things, figuring out what this means will take time.

And NOBODY knows for sure what's next. It's outside of our control, let's enjoy the mystery.


JustAPerspective t1_j5fmvig wrote

Did they?

Maxar Technologies seems to be a company dedicated to "Integrated space infrastructure and Earth intelligence capabilities that make global change visible, information actionable and space accessible." - basically, selling the data satellites already have.

Plant says "Planet revolutionized the earth observation industry with the highest frequency satellite data commercially available."

When companies make claims about their "data management projects", they aren't constructing satellites - they're marketing the information that's obtained by 'em.

So, we come back to your question: Did they pay for their own satellites?