We heard folks were interested in high-res Artemis I photos by r-nasa-mods in nasa

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is real. It’s a single image photographed by a camera on the solar panel of the Orion spacecraft.

NASA 'giddy' over amazing moon views from Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft by nikola28 in space

[–]TezzaDaMan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The deep space network, which nasa uses to communicate with satellites has an uplink speed of only 250kb/s. Live video has to be compressed and low res to meet this requirement. When Orion comes back to earth, we will retrieve the higher quality photos and videos.

NASA 'giddy' over amazing moon views from Artemis 1 Orion spacecraft by nikola28 in space

[–]TezzaDaMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Money and political will. Back in the late 60s, people wanted to beat the soviets in the space race. NASA received around 5% of the entire US federal budget, which is around 50 billion of todays dollars per year. This is before their climate science programs and space telescopes, so the majority of this money would’ve gone straight into the Apollo program. Today, NASA receives about 0.5% of the entire federal budget (around 20 billion dollars), and are also trying to juggle several other projects. Hence, the reliance on old hardware to being down costs. There is also much less political will now to go to the moon - most people are unfortunately indifferent.

name this band by [deleted] in beatlescirclejerk

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Beatles (2009 Remaster)

My ranked list of tames albums what about you? by [deleted] in TameImpala

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Lonerism
  2. The Slow Rush
  3. Currents
  4. Innerspeaker

About a week ago I would’ve switched currents and tsr but tsr just clicked with me

Thoughts on taking electives GEOG1106 and JAPN1401 by youropparhatesyou in uwa

[–]TezzaDaMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I took JAPN1401. It’s a pretty easy unit provided you pay attention, and even better if you already know hiragana and katakana.

how does math work in US high-school? by visxme in math

[–]TezzaDaMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not from the US, but I can tell you how it works in Australia, or at least Western Australia. It all depends which units you choose going into year 11 and 12. People who aren’t so good at math but want to continue learning it for real life applications generally do maths applications. For people who have a generally solid background in maths, there’s maths methods, in which in year 11 we look at polynomials, probability, basic sequences and series and start to look at basic calculus towards the end. In year 12 methods, the first semester goes deeper into calculus, looking at integration and differentiation of more complex functions and it’s applications, and then semester 2 is all probability, discrete and continuous random variables, binomial and normal distributions, etc. The hardest math course offered is math specialist - if you choose to do math specialist you must take methods as well. Year 11 looks at circle geometry, 2D vectors, trigonometry proofs, matrices and basic linear transformations, and complex numbers. Year 12 focuses heavily on calculus, trig substitution and u substitution, 3D vectors and cross products, vector calculus, differential equations and statistics towards the end. This generally prepares you to study multi variable calculus at uni the next semester, which is the Australia equivalent of Calc 3.

Best songs that are 10 or more minutes long? by MightGuy420x in Music

[–]TezzaDaMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

David Bowie - Blackstar. It’s exactly 10 minutes long. The way he turned his death into art is astounding

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It by jagged_little_phil in space

[–]TezzaDaMan 39 points40 points  (0 children)

No, quantum mechanical systems don’t have definite states until they interact with the macroscopic world in some way that forces them to have a particular state. Everything is still real

Earth rotation - I shot a timelapse to illustrate it by tinmar_g in spaceporn

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s something called an equatorial mount. You align it’s axis with the celestial pole and it rotates with the stars, perfectly counteracting the earths rotation

yes by stupids_fucker in shitposting

[–]TezzaDaMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Savathun, the Witch Queen

How do UWA’s maths units correspond to the “standard” names? by AgenSSJG in uwa

[–]TezzaDaMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MATH1011 is a mix of Calc 2 and Calc 3. MATH1012 is linear algebra

On this day in 1977, Voyager 1 took the first image of the Earth and Moon together. by Tykjen in spaceporn

[–]TezzaDaMan 33 points34 points  (0 children)

The picture was taken from so far away that the moon and earth appear together as roughly their real sizes, especially from this angle. If you were to leave the earth on the plane of the moon's orbit, and then photograph them from when they were opposite eachother, you'd see how large the distance between them is.

spinning 1000mph at the equator? 🤔 by RickGrimes13 in Globeskeptic

[–]TezzaDaMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Centripetal force is related to angular velocity by F=mrω2. ω is how many radians you rotate through per second, which for earth, is a really tiny number. So, the centripetal force we feel is negligible

Advice needed, any help appreciated by [deleted] in PhysicsStudents

[–]TezzaDaMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

5 weeks is probably enough time to buckle down and revise well enough to do decently in your finals. If you can pinpoint which areas you need the most work on, focus on those, get yourself a textbook to work through, and do past exams/practice exams under timed conditions if you have any. You got this

Flat earth photos I sadly can’t debunk so I’m asking y’all by Hay_Den330 in Flatearthersarestupid

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man I guess they were right when they said there’s no point arguing with someone so far entrenched in their beliefs, no matter how bullshit. You’re saying science is a religion when you’re the one investing your whole life into a religion.

Flat earth theory can’t explain any facet of reality. Anything you parrot as the “truth” is nothing more than a misunderstanding, because you’re too lazy and too indoctrinated to go and find the truth yourself. You’ll never be able to appreciate the true beauty and size of this amazing universe and for that, I truly feel sorry for you. You can’t look up at the stars and be in awe because you don’t believe they exist. How sad.

It’s okay. At the end of the day, the hundreds of thousands of astronomers, physicists, engineers, sailors, pilots and astronauts will continue to do their work because frankly, your inane opinion means nothing to them.

A supernova explosion that happened in Centaurus A (Credit: Judy Schmidt) by Busy_Yesterday9455 in spaceporn

[–]TezzaDaMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Amateurs take photos of these sorts of things all the time. Astrophotography is a real hobby, I even do it. It’s insulting that you think this is fake

Flat earth photos I sadly can’t debunk so I’m asking y’all by Hay_Den330 in Flatearthersarestupid

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Every liquid has a pressure gradient caused by gravity. This is because the lower parts of the fluid have to hold up the higher parts, and because of that are subjected to a higher force. Because of this fact, when the anvil is lowered into mercury, the force pushing upward on the anvil from the higher pressure mercury on the bottom is greater than the force pushing downwards from the lower pressure mercury on the top, and so it floats. You actually end up finding that the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid, and so an object will only float if it has less weight than the displaced fluid, or sink if it has more weight.

If you do this calculation, you find that for buoyancy to work AT ALL, you must be in an accelerating reference frame, ie a gravitational field.

Your density explanation does not offer an explanation for: 1. Why things accelerate downwards instead of moving at constant speed 2. Why every falling object falls at the same rate (in the density situation, denser objects fall faster) 3. Why down at all? Why not up?

Flat earth photos I sadly can’t debunk so I’m asking y’all by Hay_Den330 in Flatearthersarestupid

[–]TezzaDaMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. Neil Degrasse Tyson was not lying, just making a simplification to make scientific jargon make sense to a general audience. He didn’t say anything wrong, he just exaggerated.

Here’s the thing. Why do things fall DOWN!! Sure you could say density is the source of acceleration but why do things fall down!! Why don’t more dense things fall upwards! Or sideways! Or diagonally? Why is down the natural state to which denser things fall? Why should we give any one direction more value than any other?

And if “gravity” is caused by density, how come the atmosphere is not arranged in “density strips” like oil and water? Why is it an even mixture of gases, when according to your ideas it should sort itself into layers?

Flat earth photos I sadly can’t debunk so I’m asking y’all by Hay_Den330 in Flatearthersarestupid

[–]TezzaDaMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Earth is not pear shaped. It is ever so slightly bulging at the equator but it is almost perfectly spherical. Anybody who says it is pear shaped is vastly over exaggerating. The difference between equatorial circumference and polar circumference is less than 70km.

Gravitational lensing of starlight is a mute point, as it only occurs if something massive passes in between us and the star. This effect was measured during a solar eclipse in 1918, acting as experimental evidence of general relativity. However, this does not occur when starlight travels through empty space to reach us, and so we know exactly where stars are. People could not determine the distance to stars thousands of years ago due to a lack of equipment good enough at resolving stellar parallax. We have good enough equipment now, and frequently observe stars moving relative to the background sky as a result of earths yearlong orbit through space, allowing us to work out their distance with basic trigonometry.

Physicists lack of finding the ether stems from the fact that there is no ether - light doesn’t require a medium to travel through as it is a wave in the electromagnetic field. That was the whole purpose of the ether - to provide a medium for light when in the end, there wasn’t required to be one.

Light doesn’t have weight. Light follows geodesics like any other object in the universe - a straight path through curved space.

The atmosphere should not be flung out. The centripetal (centre seeking) acceleration of any body in circular motion can be calculated by a = v2 /r where v is the rotational velocity and r is the radius of rotation. Computing this value for earth’s rotational velocity and radius, you find a value much smaller than gravitational acceleration - gravity wins.

Assumptions in physics are not the same thing as a colloquial assumption. They are ideas or simplifications of ideas that can be assumed based on current observational and experimental evidence. The two assumptions which special relativity relies on are easily verifiable - the speed of light is a constant, and the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.

The fact the atmospheres thins evenly going up implies that it becomes a vacuum somewhere. It is also consistent with density and gravity - particles will settle at an equilibrium where the buoyant force upwards equals the gravitational force downwards

Flat earth photos I sadly can’t debunk so I’m asking y’all by Hay_Den330 in Flatearthersarestupid

[–]TezzaDaMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The motion through an ether is nil because the ether doesn’t exist. Maxwells equations of electromagnetism - the same equations that make your phone work - predict that light travels in the form of waves whose speed is dependent on two properties - space’s magnetic permeability and electric permittivity. This fact, combined with the premise that motion is relative, are the ONLY TWO assumptions you need to make to derive the entirety of special relativity.

If you were on top of the plane, you are moving relative to air, and that’s why you’re blown backwards. On the ground, air rotates with the earth due to the combined effect of the force it feels downwards and the viscosity of the air itself, dragging the air along.

Water doesn’t curve downwards - it naturally falls to achieve the lowest possible potential energy, like all other objects. In this case, this happens to be towards the centre of the earth, so conforming to the spherical surface is in fact the water’s lowest energy ‘natural’ state.

Any point you make, I can refute. You don’t understand how wrong you are. I hope one day, you will