Youtube comments of Sebastian Nolte (@sebastiannolte1201).
-
137
-
136
-
123
-
110
-
67
-
38
-
35
-
30
-
26
-
Ich verstehe nicht, warum man hier den EQS AMG 53 genommen hat und nicht den 580, das vermittelt ein falsches Bild wenn du jetzt plump sagst "BMW billiger und besser als der Mercedes". Werksangaben:
AMG EQS 53: Verbrauch 21,1–23,4 kWh; Reichweite 529–586 km
EQS 580: Verbrauch 18,2–21,3 kWh; Reichweite: 582–679 km
Und der 580 wäre in der Beschleunigung trotzdem noch etwas besser als der BMW gewesen, und hätte es schon ab 141.000 € gegeben, also etwa wie der BMW.
Abgesehen davon: ich verstehe nicht warum so viele Leute bei einer eigenen Elektro-Plattform mehr Effizienz erwarten. Welchen Grund sollte es dafür geben? Habe schon häufiger gelesen, dass der BMW Antriebsstrang sehr effizient sein soll. Ich frage mich warum nicht längst mal jemand Verbrauchsmessungen auf dem Prüfstand gemacht hat und Gewicht und Aerodynamik bewusst nicht einberechnet (bzw. identische Werte nimmt), um tatsächlich mal nur die Effizienz der antriebe zu vergleichen.
EDIT: Hatte die Verbrauchswerte aus dem Wikipedia Artikel. Auf der Website von Mercedes steht ein Mittelwert, der macht es noch deutlicher:
EQS 450: 17,5 kWh
EQS 500: 17,6 kWh
EQS 580: 17,6 kWh
EQS AMG 53: 21,2 kWh
Klar, man nimmt die Version, die schon auf dem Papier mit Abstand höchsten Verbrauch hat und sagt dann, dass der Verbrauch hoch ist... während man beim BWM nicht die M-Version sondern das Einstigesmodell nimmt...
24
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
" did newton write that law about a vacuum or space? No, he wrote it using the variables encountered in the earth environment. "
This is ridiculous. You seem to have no idea of how science work. Do you think that magnets work in space? Do you think that electricity work in space? Do you think that F=ma only is working inside the atmosphere?
And the main problem with all you people is: What is space for you? What is a vacuum for you? Do you think, that there is a relation between thrust and air pressure, so like "less air = less thrust"? If yes, can you tell me the formula? Or do you think, that there is a threshold, so below the threshold rockets work fine, and above they don't work at all? Then where is the threshold and why? Or do you think, that they just don't work in perfect vacuum? Well, even in space there is not perfect vacuum.
- The air pressure at 35.9km is only 1% comparing to the ground. We can fly that high with balloons. You can see rockets that still accelerate with full power at that altitudes
- the FAI definition for space is 100km. There iyou have 0.00027% air pressure
- The ISS at about 400km loses 50 - 150m of altitude every day because of air drag, so een there you don't have perfect vacuum.
So up to which altitude do rockets work and why?
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
I also still cannot take a flight with 2200 km/h in 2024, although It was possible in 1977. Does that mean that the Concorde was fake? No. It just means, that there is no current vehicle to do that and that nobody sees the need to design a new one for economical reasons.
But we meanwhile have a vehicle to bring humans to the moon, the SLS rocket with the Orion spacecraft, which is in development for years. And the first successful flight (Artemis 1, unmanned) around the moon was already in November 2023, the next one (Artemis 2, again around the moon, but with humans in it) now was postponed several times, should be November 2024, but now to September 2025. We will see. The crew was already announced in 2023.
And of course we only talk about humans here. We send satellites, probes etc. beyond LEO all the time.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Sorry, but they are the ones who are disrespectful. 2000 years ago flat earth could count as an opinion, but not today. Thinking that the earth is flat means that you believe in a giant conspiracy theory. Flat earthers claim, that the entire humanity besides them are either evil liars or idiots - these guys show ZERO respect to me, to all the scientists since century, to all the people who live in reality and handle with the globe earth every day. I find it really scary that conspiracy theories count as "opinions".
There is an important difference between "I think that the scientists are wrong" (that could count as an opinion) and "I think scientists are liars". There were hundreds of astronauts in space. So imagine there is one of these astronauts proudly talks about how it was in space, in a TV show, or towards kids. And then a flat earther comes and say "Liar! How dare to you to spread your satanic lies to kids!" That is disrespectful! And astronauts are just n special example, there are millions of people working in a field that has to be part of that alleged conspiracy.
Well, I say that the youtube user "blackstone" kidnaps chidlren, hide them in ist basement and rapes them. I will spread that over the internet. I mean, it just my opinion, that you rape children. Everybody has an opinion, right? People should leave me alone for that! And actually that is not even far fetched, this QAnon bullshit is also wide spread in the flat earth movement. You have seen how that can lead to last week in Washington, DC. I dealt with flat earthers for a while, in many comment sections. And they are disrespectful as you can get. When you try use arguments, they start to insult. They tell you that you are sheep who was indocrinated by the government and mainstream media.
Defamation is not an opinion. And you have to claim, that others are liars and have evil intentions if you are a flat earther. "Leave them alone and respect their opinion" is not the right way to deal with them. They follow a mindset that is dangerous.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
"So they hydrogen would be extracted from it." And that takes engery. At least (in practise far more) energy, as you will get from it, when you "burn" it (in hot fire or in a fuel cell).
"It’s already being developed in Japan. " I am quite sure it is not :-)
"Why would it run endlessly if fuelled by water and not hydrogen? "
Water is coming out of the exhaust of a hydrogen car. It is the result of the reacton of hydrogen with oxygen. If the car would run with water, then you could connect the exhaust with the fuel door :-)
When you could just "extract" the "H" of "H2O", then you also could just "extract" the "C" from "CO2" and we would not have an any climate change problems.
In ICE cars (or any other form of organic energy generation; also in your body when you eat something) your fuel is Carbon (C). In different forms: Gasoline, Diesel, Kerosine,... but also coal, wood, oil etc. You get the energy by burning it. Burning means: Oxidation. So Carbon and Oxygen combines to carbondioxide (CO2) and emit energy.
You can also use Hydrogen (H) as a fuel. Also in an ICE car. So you can "burn" it. Hydrogen and Oxygen combines to Water (H2O) and emot energy. The better and more efficient usage in a car is not an ICE engine, but instead a fuel cell. In a fuel cell, Hydrogen and Oxygen combines to Water and emit electric energy. And with that electric energy you can run the electric motor in the car.
But where do you get the Hydrogen from from? You have to generate it. At the moment most hydrogen comes from natural gas. A better enviromental friendly for the future is, to generate it from water with electrolysis by using green electricity. So electricity splits the Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. And as we all no, there is no perpeetum mobile. So you need at least as much electricity to split the Water, as you cen generate in the fuel cell later. The efficiency of the whole process (so from the electrolyis of the water up to the electric generation in the fuel cell inj the car) is quite bad. That means, that the "electricity consumption" per mile of a Hydrogen car is higher than from a battery car.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
shadi07191 Das Unternehmen, das 1909 in Molsheim gegründet wurde, gibt es seit 1963 nicht mehr. 1987 dann hat ein italienischer Unternehmer die Markenrechte (also nur Name/Logo/Design) gekauft und ein Unternehmen namens "Bugatti Automobili SpA" mit Sitz in Italien gegründet. Dieses Unternehmen hat den EB110 gebaut. 1998 dann hat die VAG die Markenrechte gekauft (aber wieder nur diese) und ein Unternehmen mit dem Namen "Bugatti Automobiles S.A.S." mit Sitz in Molsheim gegründet. Diese drei Unternehmen haben letztlich außer dem Namen nichts miteinander zu tun. VW hätte stattdessen auch ein Unternehmen namens MEGA mit Sitz in Deutschland gründen können, und der MEGA Veyron wäre quasi das gleiche Auto wie der Bugatti Veyron gewesen, entwickelt von den gleichen Leuten. Viele vergleichen Bugatti innerhalb des VW Konzernz mit Lamborghini. Das ist zwar rechtlich korrekt, aber historisch nicht zu vergleichen. Denn VW bzw. Audi hat den tatsächlichen Hersteller Lamborghini gekauft, den es schon seit langem gab. Als ganzes. Mit dem Werk, den Mitarbeitern etc; es gab quasi für Lamborghini nur "neue Chefs", aber das Unternehmen, dass den Aventador baut, ist letztlich immer noch das gleiche, welches auch den Countach gebaut hat. Bei Bugatti ist das jedoch anders, da hat man eben nur den Markennamen gekauft, und ein ganz neues Unternehmen gegründet.
Aber müssen wir jetzt hier nicht weiter diskutieren :-) Inwiefern das Konzept von Bugatti sinn macht, kann man jetzt drüber streiten. Historisch hat VW durchaus den ursprünglichen Bugatti im Blick gehabt, um dem Namen gerecht zu werden. Denn Etorre Bugatti hat nämlich auch nicht nur minimalistische Rennwagen gebaut, sondern wollte mit dem Royale auch das ultimative Luxusfahrzeug mit dem stärksten Motor seiner Zeit bauen.
Den "Tuningladen" habe ich extra in Anführungsstrichen gesetzt, bitte nicht zu wörtlich nehmen :-) Letztlich wollte ich nur den Unterschied zum Ausdruck bringen. Und deutlich machen das diese "HAha, Koenigsegg baut viel bessere Autos als Bugatti"-Sprüche albern sind. Dass selbst so mancher Koenigsegg-Fan wild One:1 und Regera zusammen wirft bzw. das eine als den Nachfolger des anderes sieht (und nicht versteht, dass Regera und One:1 unterschiedliche Konzepte verfolgen), zeigt auch, dass manchen nicht klar ist, dass Autos eben generell unterschiedliche Konzepte/Schwerpunkte/Ideen/... haben.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Although it is called "Kirchensteuer"("Steuer" = "Tax") also in German, it is not an actual tax. It is basically the membership fee for the church - the government is only service provider who collects it in the name of the church, together with the taxes. if you don't want to pay it, then you just have to leave the church. The thing is that when kids are baptised they automatically get church members, and then they have to actively quit as an adult (it is possible when you have the age of 14).
When you are an employee, you don't even have to actively pay you taxes - your employer does it for you. They salary, hat you get, is already without the taxes. So a tax declaration is voluntary. You can do it, if you want to get some money back. Because of that when you star a job, you have to inform your employer at what health insurance company you are (because the employer also pay that) and if you are a church member (and which one).
As a freelancer you have to do a tax declaration, and so when you fill out the forms and tell how much money you have earned in that year, you also if you are a member of the church and which one. And then the tax office tells you the overall taxes that you have to pay.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@s.c1564 Sie wollen darauf hinaus, dass Krankheiten künstlich erzeugt werden, damit die Pharmaindustrie ihren Kram verkauft? Da sind Sie bei mir falsch. Mir müssen Sie nicht über die Absurditäten unseren Wachstumswirtschaftswesen erzählen. Ein System das darauf ausgelegt ist, dass die Menschen unzufrieden sind und Dinge kaufen, die sie gar nicht brauchen. Ein System, dass mir sagen will, dass ich mich unsozial verhalte, wenn ich nicht konsumiere. Ich halte das für absurd, sage dass wir einen Wandel brauchen und bin für ein Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen.
Ich kaufen auch im Grunde nie Medikamente. Ich habe einen guten Arzt, der mir erst dann Antibiotika verschreibt, wenn es wirklich gar nicht anders geht. Wenn ich erkältet bin, dann kaufe ich auch kein Grippostad oder so ein Quatsch, sondern trinke Ingwertee, schone mich und warte ab. Erkältungskomplexmittel sind tatsächlich eine wahre Goldgrube für die Industrie - man nehme billiges Paracetamol oder ASS, dazu billiges Vitamin C, Koffein usw, und verkauft das für den 10 fachen Preis. Und das tolle ist, dass die üblichen Erkältuingsviren nie ganz verschwinden werden, also jahr für Jahr kaufen die Leute den Kram.
Nur: was hat das alles mit Ihren absurden Behauptungen und paranoiden Theorien zu tun, dass die Gründer von Biontech oder Bill Gates Ihre Kinder selbst nicht impfen lassen würden? Was hat das damit zu tun, dass Uğur Şahin und Özlem Türeci 2008 eine Firma gegründet haben, die sich der Entwicklung von Krebsimmuntherapien zum Ziel setzt (was eine Gute Sache ist)? Offenbar können Sie sich nicht vorstellen, dass es Menschen gibt, die z.B. etwas studieren und in bestimmten Berufen arbeiten, weil sie wirklich was erreichen wollen und tolle Dinge entwickeln, die den Menschen helfen.
Sie sind nicht in der Lage, differenziert zu denken, da Sie die Welt pauschal in gut und böse Kategorien (wie z.B. "die Pharmaindustrie") einteilen.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
" Orbits a star, round surface, it has moons, and it even has an atmosphere."
So that are your definition for a planet? Well, the International Astronomical Union has another definition. By that a planet has to fullfill three things:
1. Orbits the sun
2. is more or less a sphere
3. Is the main object in its surrounding, so has cleared its orbit
Pluto fulfills only 1 and 2, but not 3.
" It's even called a "dwarf planet." "
Yes, that is the name for objects that fulfills 1 and 2 of the things above. BTW that also means that in the same moment, when Pluto was downgraded from "planet" ot "dwarf planet", Ceres was upgraded from "asteroid" to "dwarf planet".
"The size does not matter"
Correct, as you see above, the size is not relevant for the question if an object is categorized as "planet" or "dwarf planet".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"So, they invented a whole new reference category for Pluto to fit into. "
After the discovery of Eris, Makemake and Haumea. Which was the reason to make a new category. We wouldn't have done it only for Pluto.
"Prior to their declassifying Pluto as a "planet", there weren't "dwarf planets"."
Prior to the desclassifying of Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea as a "planet", there weren't "asteroids".
It is funny how people react to the declassification of Pluto and seem to ignore that we had the same situation back In around 1850:
- we had seven planets around 1800 (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus)
- we found small planets (Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea) between Mars and Jupiter
- we found Neptune as the officially 13th planet in 1846
- we found more and more small objects between Mars and Jupiter, we didn't want to call them all planets, so we created a new category of small/minor "planets" and created the name "asteroids" for them.
- we only had 8 planets again (until the discovery of Pluto in 1930)
"3rd grade science for me was in the mid-80s (I think) and there was no such thing."
And for somebody who was in 3rd grade science in 1846 then there was no such a thing as "asteroids" but 13 planets.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Newton's model of gravity: Gravity is a force between everything that has a mass. It depends on the masses and the distance between the objects. The formula is:
(Gravitational constant)*(mass of object 1)*(mass of object 2)/(distance between the center of the objects)^2
And additionally Newton discovered his laws of motion
1. Everything keeps its state of motion (so doesn't change speed or direction) unless it is discovered by a force
2. Force = mass * acceleration
3. To every action, there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
And this experiment confirms that. Everything act like it should if the formula for gravity and the laws of motion are correct.
And what do you mean with "Proves density"?
- Density is a feature of an object. Like mass. So how can "density" be the alternative to "gravity"? That doesn't make any sense.
- objects are pulled to the ground. That is a fact.
- that force does NOT depend on the density, but on the mass. Of course it does, that is what you measure and feel!
a) Try to lift 1kg of iron vs 100 kg of iron. They have the same density. According to your claim you would need the same force to lift them. But no, you need about 9.8 N to lift 1kg iron and 980 N to lift 100 kg iron. Because the force, that pulls the object to the ground depends on the mass, not on the density!
b) Try to lift 1 kg of Iron vs 1Kg of styrofoam. They have very different density. So according to your claim it should be easier to lift the styrofoam. But no, you need the same force to lift them (about 9.8 N). Because the force, that pulls the objects to the ground, depends on the mass, not on the density!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
TrangleC: Actually you just write, that you like Gran Turismos more than pure hardcore sports cars. But I don't understand which current development of Ferrari you mean. They switched from mid engine to front engine already in 1996 with the 550, and all the successors (575, 599, F12, and now the 812) kept that. But I think also the Testarossa (so the MidEngine predecessor of the 550) was a bit more about comfort and daily usability than e.g. the Lamborghini Countach back then.
The four seaters (GTC4Lusso now, but also the predecessors FF, 612, 456, 412, 400,...) of course were always comfort Gran Turismos. On the other hand the "entry level" Ferrari (488 now, but also all the predeccessors) always had an V8 mid-engine, and probably will also keep that in the future. And they are more or less the "sportiest" Ferraris. And finally there are the limited hypercars (LaFerrari, Enzo, F50, F40) that a pure carbon fibre driving machines.
So I don't understand what you mean with" Ferrary seems to be going into the front engine direction more and more. "
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Vor allem haben sie ja schon abgeliefert... " Ja, Model S und Model X, respekt dafür. Auch dafür, dass sie eine so große alte Industrie aufgewirbelt haben und sich was getraut haben. Aber die derzeitigen Probleme bei der Model 3 Produktion zeigen, dass sie eben noch nicht auf dem Niveau der großen Hersteller sind. Tesla muss erst noch beweisen, dass sie ein beständiger Autohersteller sind, der zuverlässig und in großen Stückzahlen produzieren kann und dabei auch noch Geld verdient. Das ist nämlich derzeit noch nicht der Fall.
Die Annahmen, dass Tesla Weltmarktführer wird und die etablierten Hersteller sich große Sorgen machen müssen, sind einfach nur völlig naiv. Der Markt an Elektroautos ist noch sehr klein. Ohne massive staatliche Förderungen in manchen Ländern oder Gesetzesvorgaben wäre er noch kleiner. Der "Vorsprung", den Tesla hat, sagt überhaupt nichts aus. Gerade VW hat mehrfach gezeigt, dass sie spät in Märkte einsteigen, aber dann sehr erfolgreich sind. In den nächsten Jahren tut sich so einiges bei den etablierten Herstellern, bezüglich Elektroautos. Aber auch 2020 werden sich die meisten Leute sowieso noch für einen Verbrenner entscheiden.
Bei den Autos selbst ist Tesla nicht auffallend weiter, wenn da die anderen mit etwas vergleichbaren ankommen, sind die wieder voll dabei. Die Ladeinfsrastruktur ist in der Tat der Hauptvorteil und derzeit ein Hauptgrund, weshalb ein Tesla besser nutzbar ist als ein vergleichbares Elektroautos eines anderes Herstellern auch bei ansonsten gleichen Daten. Aber auch da tut sich ja was.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why not? Who started that stupid idea that at a public funded science facility, where many people work, that is open for everybody, where you can make an internship, where students write their PhD, which has the goal to public scientific results open for everybody etc, works secretly on some weird, demonic, dangerous,... stuff? It is not a military base. It is just a particle collider. We also have one in Hamburg, Germany. I made my high school internship at the university in Dortmund, physics department. They had a an experiment at the collider in Hamburg, my internship mentor worked on his PhD there.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"im not sure if they actually went to "space"."
The atmosphere becomes thinner fluently, so you cannot say where it ends. They reached 89 km. The US Air Force definition for the beginning of space is 80 km. The most used definition is 100km. Both are arbitrary, have to do with aviation, and there is still atmosphere higher than 100 km. The question if something is actually in space or not is pointless.
"you can achieve this same thing without going to "outer space" "
Of course, but the higher you go, the longer you can experience it. Weightlessess never has to do with "space". At the International Space Station gravity is only 13% weaker than down here.
"outer space" meaning outside Earths atmosphere is 330,000 ft from the surface,"
As I said, also that is an arbitrary definition. At about that altitude, the necessary speed to get aerodynamic uplift becomes as high as orbital speed. You think that is a real natural definition for "end of the atmosphere"? It was mainly pushed by the World Air Sports Federation who had to define where "aviation" ends, otherwise aviation records like "hightes flight", "fastest airplane"... were pointless in the space era.
The International Space Station loses more than 50 meters of altitude every day because there is still so much atmosphere at 400 km that the drag slows it down.
And it is not exact 330,000 feet, it is 100 km. And it is no even that: But they rounded it to 100 km, because it is such a nice number.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The purpose of the James Webb telescope is to take pictures from objects that are very far away. It is at the LaGrange Point 2 on the sun-earth system, so sun-earth-telescope stay on one axis while the earth orbits around the sun. It has the always the sun and the earth in the back. Turning it towards the earth would mean that it looks directly into the sun. Have you ever tried a to take a picture of something in front of the sun? Bad idea. And even worse: It is an infrared telescope, so basicly a thermal camera. It has a heat shield in the back that protects it from the sun rays because it has to stay cold.
So if you ever have taken a photo I guess you would agree that a better position to take picture of the earth would be also on that axis, but with the sun in the back, right? And do you know what? There is a camera on exact that position, since 2015. It was made to observe the earth. It takes several picture per day, you can all see them online. And choose a date in the past to see the pictures of that day. There is a "Play" button so that you have an animation and see the rotation. It is the "Deep Space Climate Observatory" (DSCOVR), the the color-camera on it is the "Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera" (EPIC; it has other tools, of course). Comments with links in it will be blocked, so please google for yourself. For the NASA site with the pictures google for EPIC DSCOVR, should be the first result.
So you actually want a camera, that was made to look away from earth to observe far away objects, turn to earth. But you just ignoring that there is a camera, that already does exactly what you have asked for. You guys are so embarassing, just stop talking about "Do your own research!" when you are not even able to find out that the DSCOVR exists. You also probably don't know that Hubble actually did take pictures of the moon...
Let me guess: You will say that the DSCOVR pictures are fake. Then why do you even ask for pictures? No matter what NASA presents you, you will say that they are fake. If NASA would turn Hubble or James Webb towards earth and take pictures, why would think that they were real?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Trojan7575 Ceres was discovered already in 1801, it is between Mars and Jupiter. Later also Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea. When Neptune was discovered in 1846 it was the 13th planet. But as we found more and more objects between Mars and Jupiter, they decided to not call them all "planets" but instead introduce a new category called "asteroid", and we only had 8 planets.
What happened in 2006 with Pluto (more and more objects in an area were discovered, makes no sense to call them all planets, introducing a new category of objects and already known planets now fall in that new category) already happened in the 1850s. But I don't know if back then also nostalgic people said "In my heart, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea will always be planets!!!" as people do today with Pluto...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Who is "they"? CERN stand for "Conseil européen pour la recherche nucléaire", the European Organization for Nuclear Research , founded in 1954. Their first collider opened in 1957, the LHC is the newest. There are others, for example in Hamburg, Germany. In High school I did my internship at a German university, the physics department. They had an experiment at the Hamburg collider. My internship mentor made ist PhD there. It is just nerdy science stuff. And CERN is public funded, everything has to be open, the results are open. Just study physics somewhere, make your PhD there etc. Actually they are begging for funding, like every science experiments. Have you even done ANY research about CERN? Have you study their website?
Who even came up with this weird conspiracy theories about it? I guess I also should troll the internet and start similar bullshit about DESY, the collider in Hamburg, would be fun, because gullible people like you suddenly would believe this nonsense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
" When they showed the astronauts on the moon why in the background were thier no stars "
Because it was daytime on the moon. Do you see stars in daylight? No, they are too dim in comparison to the rest. Cameras have a limited dynamic range. When you adjust the exposure to the moons surface and the astronauts, you cannot see the stars. You also notice that behavoir when you try too take pictures with the sun in the background. Or when you are inside and try to take a picture of somebody with a window in the background. Here is also an article:
https://www.wired.com/2007/11/why-cant-stars/
There are also many videos of amateurs, who send up balloons with a camera on it to altitudes, where the sky is not blue anymore, so where you see the black void of space already. You don't see stars on any of them, here some examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y0nHhFGXDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihA9YOcOaXU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQGjNu6Inak
"no light? "
Of course theere is the sun, otherwise it would be dark.
"Also why are all the pictures from NASA? Never no other Resources ?"
What are you talking about? The Apollo missions were from NASA, so of course the pictures of them are by NASA. But when you talk about "space pictures" in general: There are many others. The ISS is an international project, so there are many pictures and videos by ESA and others, not only NASA. There is a japanese weather satellite that sends a live picture of the earth every ten minutes:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
There are also private satellites, so I don't really know what they mean. The obsession with NASA is really a weird thing of flat earthers.
" I am a globe believer but I see a few points these flat earthers have."
I am glad that you see, that even if NASA was lying about the moon landings or space travel in general, it would have nothing to do with the shape of the earth (because we don't need to go to space for knowing that, we know it since centuries). But I recommend to use common sense and to do research. So for example this "no stars on the pictures": Do you really think that nobody ever noticed that or would wonder about it?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
9th? It is the 13th: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Juno, Vesta, Astraea, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptun, Pluto.
The people who claimed, that Ceres, Juno, Vesta and Astraea are no planets anymore back in 1847 can rot in Hades!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"He's just proved that it's impossible that Apollo went to the moon"
Fun fact: In the Apollo 15 missions, an astronaut made the same experiment on the moon. He dropped a hammer and a feather, and both landed on the ground at the same time. So that showed that he was in a vacuum, and not in earth's atmosphere.
"To withstand an external vacuum (if such a thing could exist) any space craft would need to have walls the same dimensions as the testing silos.."
No. You just don't understand how pressure works. Remember the submarine to the titanic? It was squished. And the reason was, that the pressure around them (from the water) was much higher than the pressure inside. And here here the enviroment around the silo has a a higher pressure then inside the silo,
In space it is the opposite , the higher pressure is inside the spacecraft. So the spacecraft would explode, not be squished. But the press difference is only 1 bar! Because it is 1 bar inside of the space station and 0 bar outside of it. So it is like pumping a tyre with 2 bar down here (so with pressure of 1 bar outside), which is nothing.
And it is weird that you talk about the vacuum of space as if it is something magical up there that we have to believe. The air pressure gets lower quickly when you go higher, you already feel the pressure difference in your ears when you go with a high and fast elevator. Feel free to send up a weather balloon with a barometer on it. Maybe people have done that, so amateurs, and they reach up to 30 km. Already at 18 km you only have 10% of sea level air pressure. And it becomes less and less when you go higher.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Always the same Tesla.Fanboy-Bullshit...
- What's up with this stupid emphasis on "Family Sedan"? Family Sedans have more than 700 hp and make 0-60 in less than 3 seconds? The Mercedes AMG E63S T is a "family Station wagon" and still beats other "dedicated race cars", even by Mercedes itself. But if it loses narrowly in a drag race agains a sport car, I have never read that Mercedes fans complain "That is not fair, the Mercedes is a Family station wagon..." When you see drag races on youtube, you always see cars from different classes, but nobody complains.
- The Taycan is definitly not a "dedicated race car", maybe a "dedicated sports car". But if it is really that: Why does it have four doors? Why does it have decent space on the back seats? They even left gaps in the battery where the rearseat passangers have their feet, so that they can sit more comfortable. So they actually decided to have a smaller battery (so less range), so that people in the back can sit better - in a "dedicated race car"?
- let's imagine there will be a drag race between the new Roadsterand the Tayca, and the Roadster win. Do you know what I would say then? "That race is a 'misalliance' - different car classes: The Taycan is a four-door sports-sedan, the Roadster is a dedicated race car"
- let's imagine there is an overall review between Roadster and Taycan, and the Taycan wins at least in certain categories, because the space and entrance to the back seat is better. I am afraid you are the first one who will complain "That is not a fair comparison, the Roadster is a two-doors-sportscar, so of course it is worse in that then the Taycan, which is a sedan". You just decide that comparison s are bad if Tesla loses!
- Oh, and BTW: Which Roadster? Since the first Races on youtube with the Taycan, you guys always mention "Not fair, comapre it with the Roadster... " There is no Roadster! It will come to the market maybe in 2022. Why do you guys act like it already exists as a production car?
Both Model S and Taycan
- have about the same size
- are four door sedans
- are electric
- have two mtoros
- have similar power and acceleration numbers on paper
- the Model S even have thing like "ludicrous mode" and focuses massivly on this low 0-60 mph numbers. So if this was a race on a track I maybe could more accept this "Taycan is a sports car, Model S a sedan, that doesn't match" argument. But not when it comes to a drag race!
So how can you say it is "misalliance"? Even if the Roadster would exist I don't see, that the Roadster is definitly the better fitting competitor. Yes, the Taycan was developed more as sportscar, so with a different focus than the Model S. But that still doesn't mean, that a drag race between Model S and Taycan is a "misalliance".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@personalcoach2131
I think you have a wrong image of the Kupier belt (to be honest I already thought that after reading your initial question, so my answer was a bit provoking, sorry for that). Let's stay with the forest comparison. If the Kuiper Belt was a forest and Pluto was a tree in it, then you would only have a picture of that single tree and around it there would be nothing. Because the next tree in that forest is miles away. Probably nobody even would call it a "forest".
Space mainly constists of nothing, a complete void. Here a scale model: If the sun has a diameter of one meter, then Mercury is 41 m away and would only have a size of 3.5 mm. Earth would 107 m away, Jupiter 556 m, Pluto 4219 m and the next star Proxima Centauri would be 28800 km (!) away. So if you hear terms like "asteroid belt", "Kupier belt" and "Oort cloud" you better should take them metaphorically. Because they are regions with a higher density of objects - but only in comparison to the rest of the solar system. They still consist of mainly nothing and the distance between the objects in that "belts" is huge.
Actually New Horizons flew further after passing Pluto and went to (486958) Arrokoth, an object in the Kuiper Belt. It is the furthest object that was ever visited by a probe. But New Horizon needed 3.5 years from Pluto to Arrokoth although it flies with the incredible speed of about 15 kilomters per second! On its way it also made pictures of other objects in the Kuiper Belt, but they were millions of kilometers away.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gunsmokestunes5225
I appreciate that you actually answered and that you really seem to be interested in this. So I will try to explain it further.
"Theory is the key word"
It seems you don't know what a scientific theory is. You only can disprove it. But we USE it because it WORKS. And I have written the theory at the beginning of my comment. Can you disprove it?
"Demonstrate and prove gravity in a lab so that it is no longer a theory and I'll be waiting"
The Cavendish experiment does it. It is done by students in universities, it is a common thing.
However, the weird thing is, that you not only say that "gravity is a force between everything that has a mass" cannot be proven. You even deny "There is a force between the earth and smaller objects that depends on the mass". Although you experience that all the time in your everyday life.
"what I said doesn't mean you need the same force to lift 100 lbs or 1 pound"
But you are talking about "density". Then what do you mean? I have the impression that you don't know what the theory of gravity even actuall says (altghough I have explained it). That seems to be the case for many people who just pick up this "Gravity is a wrong, there is only buyoancy and density" on the internet (be honest: You did not come to that by yourself).
So let's make it simple:
a) If we take a certain object then it has a mass and a density. Can we agree on that?
b) If you want to lift that object, you need a certain force. That means, it is pulled /pushed to the ground with a certain force. Can we agree on that?
c) the force depends on the mass. So if you have an object with a mass of 1 kg and one with 2kg, then you need twice the force for the 2 kg object. Can we agree on that?
If you can agree on all that: What even is your problem with Newton's theory of gravity? Because it is just that! It just describes that there is a force that depends on the mass! Well, as I said, we only took the simplified version, which is not the complete model. We just use the special case "gravity is a force between the earth and an object, that depends on the mass of the object". Actually the universal model is "gravity is a force between all objects [so not only between the earth and a small object] that depends on the masses of the objects".
However, for this experiment only the simplified version is relevant. Then what is your problem? Both the feather and the ball are pulled to the ground with a force, that depends on their masses. So they accelerate to the ground.
You think the ball should accelerate faster, because the force is higher? Then ypu forget Newtons second law: Force = mass * acceleration, or: acceleration = Force/mass. You also experience that all the time in your everyday life: An object with higher mass is harder to accelerate. That has nothing to do with gravity. Of you have two cars with the same horse power but different mass, then the lighter car wins a drag race. Because it has a higher acceleration. So twice the mass = half the acceleration.
In free fall, the Force is the weight (so gravity). And that depends on the mass, so twice the mass = twice the force. And that means: The mass equal out in the acceleration formula. So the acceleration of a free falling objects down here on earth in a vacuum is about 9.8 m/s^2 , independet of the mass of the object.
3
-
@gunsmokestunes5225 Have you even read my comment? And msa7933 comment entirely?
" I understand it's a hypothesis ... "
No, it is a theory.
" Go in a lab and prove gravity so that it is no longer a theory"
Again, we both have mentioned the Cavendish experiment! And again, the weird thing is that you are not even about the actual theory of gravity, you even deny the simple and obvious and measurable FACT that here on earth an object is pulled to the ground with a force that is relative to the mass.
The reason why models are always "only" theories is, that of course you cannot PROVE them. How should that work? You always only can make experiments that confirms or disprove the theory. But please explain how you should "prove" Newton's theory of gravity? We can make an experiment that CONFIRMS it. And we did thousands of experiment which all CONFIRMS it. We use that theory all the time, and it works, it make correct predictions. But how can you prove that it is correct for EVERY situation, every mass, every distance, today, in the future, under every circumstance? You can't!
So you ignore what I have written, I will just do copy and paste:
The theory is: Gravity is a force between everything that has a mass. It depends on the masses and the distance between the objects. The formula is:
(Gravitational constant)*(mass of object 1)*(mass of object 2)/(distance between the center of the objects)^2
Please explain how you would PROVE that theory in the way that it is "not just a theory anymore".
"density isn't a theory is it ? "
No, it is not, in the same way as a lion is not a feeling, a house is not a color, a pizza is not a poem, happiness is not an airplane. What even is that for a weird question? Density is a property of an object, it the the quotient of mass and volume.
"Because it can be proven"
How can you prove density? What should that even mean? Color can be a property of an object. So the color of my t-shirt is green. How can you prove "color"? What does that even mean?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Pluto has always been a planet and will always be a planet."
Pluto has always been what it is. "Planet" is a category made by humans, so they can decide what a planet is or not. The name comes from ancient greece and means something like "wanderer". Because people noticed that there are stars on the sky who are not fixed but move independet from each other, so they call them "planets". At a time, when people didn't know that earth itself was a planet.
"The ancients knew way before today’s scientists & astronomers wanna be stupid."
The ancients only knew the planets, that can be seen with your naked eye: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. So five planets.
When heliocentrism was discovered we found out that earth is a planet, too, so we had six planets.
In 1781 Uranus was discovered, so we had seven planets.
In the middle of the 19th century we discovered small planets between Mars and Jupiter: Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea. So we had twelve planets
In 1846 Neptune was discovered, so we had thirteen planets.
But then we found more and more small objects between Mars and Jupiter, and scientist back then thought: We cannot call them all "planets". Let's make a new category "asteroid". So Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea were downgraded from "planet" to "asteroid". So we had only eight planets.
In 1930 Pluto was discovered. And first we thought it was bigger than it actually is. It was catogerized as planet. So we had nine planets. But especially when we found out that it was smaller, people started to discuss if it should be called a planet.
In 2005 we found Eris beyond Pluto, so a tenth Planet? Shorl after that Makemake was discovered. And we had the same situation as in the 1850s, so more and more objects in a belt were discovered and the question was: Should they all be called planets? And they decided: No, let's make a new definition for "planet". And Pluto didn't fullfill that new definition anymore, so it was downgraded from "planet" to "dwarf planet". BTW; with that new definitions, Ceres was upgraded from "asteroid" to "dwarf planet".
We can discuss about the nw definition, I don't want to say that it is good (actually I don't care). But your "argument" just doesn't make any sense and shows that you have no idea about these topics. There are thousands of objects orbiting around the sun. And only from 1930 to 2006 we called nine of them "planets". And you really come up with numerolgy, say that "9" is special number and come up with the ancients? It is really ironic that you critizse "stupid modern scientists cannot just say, that we only have eight planets now", while it also were "stupid modern scientists" who decided that we had nine plantes before.
What is your definition for "planet"?
3
-
3
-
@sehmusakbas
"for some reason when I watched the experiment I thought of the guys comparing it to the space, hence, I thought of no gravity or lessened gravity. "
Ah, OK. Many people have this misconception that there is no gravity in space, but that is wrong. With "Space" we just mean "out of the atmosphere". So it just means that there is no air. Gravity is a complete different thing. It becomes weaker with the distance (so actually it is already weaker on a mountain than in the valley; but the difference is so small that you don't notice it) but never zero. The International Space Station is 400 km away from earth's surface and gravity there is only 13% weaker than down here. Gravity pulls on satellites and on the moon, that is the reason why they orbit around the earth, otherwise they would fly straight away. Gravity is the reason why the planets orbit around the sun. But they orbit at a certain highs speed so that there is a balance between centrifugal force and gravity. If you would slow down the moon it would fall down to earth. If you would slow down the earth on its way around the sun, it would fall into the sun.
"I still haven’t completely understood how the bowling ball can hit that hard if the air is extracted by a large amount."
The question is: Why should it NOT hit hard? Without air you see pure gravity working. With air the free fall is affected by drag - but for the bowling ball the influnce of the air is not really noticeble, but it is very strong noticeble for the feather.
"The air was extracted to decrease the amount of friction ONLY. so with the gravity being the same and the weight of the bowling ball staying the same but with fractionally less air for the surface to hit (which could even increase the speed of the ball’s pull, I guess) it drops at the same speed as before, but this time the feather does the same thing, too"
Exactly! The reason why a car has a maximum speed, is drag. In a vacuum a vehicle would just keep on accelerating as long as the engine runs. You actually can calculate the max speed of the car, if you know the size, shape, and engine power. The drag increases with the speed. And the max speed of a car is the speed where the drag force becomes as high as the engine force.
And in free fall we use the term "terminal velocity" that an objects reaches in the atmosphere. It is the speed, where the drag force becomes as high as the gravitational force, so the weight. So the terminal velocity depends on the relation between the weight of the object and the aerodynamics. The weight of the feather is very low, while on the other hand it has bad aerodynamics. So it has a much lower terminal velocity than the bowling ball and reaches it shortly after it drops.
3
-
3
-
"This is another wrong comparison ......"
Another stupid "wrong comparison" comment. This is just a drag race, not a "what is the better car" comparison.
"when you will see a Taycan as a taxi just let us know !!!"
Why is that an argument? Here is a drag race between Germany's most used Taxi (Mercedes E-class) and a Porsche 911:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhKyb6hXzb0
The "Taxi" wins. Not a suprise, it has much more horsepower (also on paper it is faster from 0-60). Why should it be relevant for a drag race if a car is "sports car" or a "family sedan" (BTW you get the Mercedes E63S also as a station wagon)?
"I understand you have to create trafic on your channel"
Have you seen the other drag races on this channel? There are for example (just: on the first screen, I did not scroll very far)
- Lamborghini Aventador vs Audi RS7 (an exotic supercar vs a sedan)
- Mercedes G63 vs Mercedes A45 (a offrad car vs a compact hatchback)
- Audi R8 vs Audi RQ8 (a two door sports car vs a SUV)
But I don't find that many whiny "That is an unfair comparison" on those videos - while the comment section here is full of it.
"but its a shame to compare these cars just because they are electrics"
They are not just both electric. That would be an argument if it be for example a Taycan vs a Renault Zoe.
But these cars are:
- Both electric
- Both have two motors
- Both have similar power (the Tesla even more!)
- Both have a similar size
- Both have four doors an descent space on the back seats
Sorry, but how similar should a car be to the other so that you would not complain? This is as close as you can get. Or are you even one of the guys who say "Better compare it with the Roadster"? If that happens and the Porsche loses I could say "That is not fair, the Roadster is a two door sports car, the Porsche is a sedan, not the same family"! What if the Model S Plaid Version comes and wins? Suddenly it is fine?
There were so many drag races between the Model S and other cars, also super sports cars, and nobody complained. But now when the Model S loses for the first time, it is suddenly an unfair comparison? That is ridiculous. When it would be a race on the track I maybe could understand it a bit more. But not on a drag race, here you mainly need power, not a good steering, handling, roadholding etc. And the Model S is optimized for drag races! For Tesla, perfomance is only "0-60". Everybody talks about it, there are funny reaction videos of people who sit in the Tesla when it accelerates. There are all these fancy "Insane mode" and "Ludicrous" updates, that are all about better accleration. So if there is one thing where the Model S has an superior Perfomance, it is a drag race. And now when it loses people really say "It is unfair, the Model S is a family sedan, the Taycan is a sports car"? As I said, that is ridiculous.
"they are not on same family ....."
Just because the Taycan is more focused on sportiness and driving? That is also the case when you compare a Porsche Panamera with a Mercedes S-class. So?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Seine Rakete ist schon am Start explodiert."
Nein, ist sie nicht. Sie ist erfolgreich gestartet und wurde in 39 km Höhe gezielt gesprengt, als sie taumelte und das trennen vom Raumschiff mit dem Booster nicht funktionierte. Das wichtigste (der Start) hat geklappt. Ein 100% Erfolg wäre gewesen, wenn die sich getrennt hätten und später ins Meer gefallen wären.
" Und jeder der da mitgefahren wäre, hätte ins Gras gebissen."
Warum sollte jemand in einem frühe Prototypen mitfahren, der quasi nur aus einem Tank und Antrieb besteht?
"Denkt ihr immer noch dass er so cool und toll ist?"
Jetzt mal völlig unabhängig von der Person Elon Musk und der Mars Vision: SpaceX Falcon Raketen sind mittlerweile 200 mal gestartet, sind zuverlässig und günstig u.a. weil die untere Stufe spektakulär senkrecht wieder landen und wiederverwertet werden kann. SpaceX ist damit Marktführe. Und Sie haben auch ein Raumschiff für Menschen, das derzeit das einzige ist, welches Menschen zur ISS bringt, was schon mehrfach passiert ist. Es gab sogar schon einen privaten (also "Touristen"-Flug) damit.
Und das hier ist nun eben eine komplett neue Rakete, mit komplett neuen Triebwerken, und die größte die es je gab. Und SpaceX arbeitet hier eben sehr agil: Anstatt jahrelange nur theoretisch zu entwickeln und am Computer zu simulieren, bauen sie viele Prototypen, testen damit rum, entwickelt diese Weiter. Ob das am Ende wirklich viel schneller und billiger ist als die herkömmliche Art der Entwicklung wird sich zeigen.
Aber aus diesem Test Schlüsse zu ziehen, dass das fertige Raumschiff gefährlich ist und Musk nicht "cool und toll" ist, ist absurd. Wenn ein Autohersteller ein ganz neues Modell rausbringt mit neuer Technik, interssiert es dich da ob Tests mit Prototypen Jahre vor Markteinführung noch nicht richtig funktionieren? Bevor der Airbag auf den Markt kam, ist bei Tests vielleicht auch mal ein Dummy schwer verletzt worden weil der Airbag falsch oder zu hart auslöst oder so - hättest du da auch sowas gesagt wie "Wie würde es ausschauen, wenn ein echter Mensch darin gesessen hätte und kein Dumm. Wär hätte da die Verantwortung übernommen?" Und deshalb gesagt, dass du kein Auto mit Airbag kaufst?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You have no idea what a scientific theory is. It is also only a theory, that 1 billion liters of water weighs one billon kg. Or do you have a scale to measure that? The whole idea of science is to develop models that describes reality so that we can use it and make predictions. But of course we can only disprove scientific models, but never prove them. But that is not a problem, because the models don't become entirely wrong (becasue they obviously worked), we just refine them or find out, that they don't work for all conditions. Newtons physics is applied science. Engineers use them all the time. Would you prefer to go on a roller coaster that was designed by an engineer using Newtonian physics or a roller coatser that was designed by somebody how don't beleive in Newtonian physics and just designed it because it looks cook or by gut feelings? I will never understand why flat earther don't beleive in some kind of "earth's pull force" (it doesn't have to be gravity), it would make things easier and realistic. Oh wait, I understand why you do that: You guys don'T think for yourself, but just parrot what you see in other videos. You would never come by yourself to such a stupid thing like "There is no gravity, only density and buoyancy". We can feel and measure that an object with a mass of 1 kg is pulled to the ground with a force of about 9.8 N (depends on where you are; objects are lighter at the equator becasue of the rotatioin and the oblated poles). That is a simple fact.
There is no flat earth theor. Where is you flat earth model that can be used? Where is the model that can predict things? I can just can take a globe model to travel around and predict how long trips will take because I can measure on the model how far the distances are. Where is your working flat earth map? I can observe a sunset at the beach and see immediatly, that earth cannot be flat. Where is your flat earth model (e.g. a simple computer animation) where a sunset looks like it does in reality? I can take a tellurium and can see witzh a simple and logic model, where the the night/day-border is. Where is your flat earth model, that can make such predictions and makes sense, so without a weid sund, that has a wird shaped spotlight? I can take program like Celestia and can see how the sky will look at a certain time in the future and it works. Where is your working model that makes sense and can predict things?
Airplanes don't have to drop activley. The uplift depends on the air pressure, so is different depending from the altitude. So if you fly with a certain speed that should keep your altitude, you will stay in your air layer. And besides that, pilots use autopilots and even if you fly manually, you just look at the alitmeter and have to correct all the time anyway. But maybe you can answer a question: If an airplane flies straight towards west, do they constantly steer right so that they don't land in the Antarctic ring instead of makeing a circumnavigation?
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SophiesDriver
" I made my position abundantly clear. "
I haven't heard a definition from you. And I don't want to argue that Pluto is not a planet, and I don't want to say that the planet definition of 2006 is good.. But many people just seem to be nostalgic and just claim (quite narcissistic, actually), that for all time the nine planets, that they lived with during their life, have to be stay the same. But I cannot think of a good and scientific definition where exactly Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto (not more, not less) are planets.
"Pluto's reclassification by administrators was not science, it is a funding grab"
Were there mainly administrators at the IAU during the 2006 voting, or why are you talking about "administrators"? And I wonder if you think that the reclassification of Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea in 1851 was scientific? And the next reclassification of Ceres in 2006?
2
-
@JackH2478
" is that where grabbity stops working and you magically float?! Lol."
No, 62 miles is the altitude where the necessary speed to get aerodynamic uplift becomes as high as orbital speed.. Some people once decided to use that as the thresold between aeronautics and astronautics. US air force uses 50 miles. All definitinions are arbitrary, the atmosphere becomes thinner fluently, so you cannot say where it ends. And it doesn't matter. The ISS at 250 miles loses some altitude all the time because there is still some atmospheric drag at that altitude.
Why should gravity stops working suddenly? Have you ever even looked into the formula for gravity? It becomes weaker with the distance but never zero. And it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. At 250 miles (the altitude of the ISS) it is only 13% weaker than down here. In a launching rocket the astronauts don't begin to float when they reach a certain altitude. Instead they begin to float when the rocket stops the engine and the spacecrafts begins to coast/fall/move only by its momentum. ZeroG airplanes don't "simulate" the weightlessness that you have in the space station. Instead it is the same effect. You are weightless when no other force than gravity effects you, so in free fall.
"Or where you have a vacuum next to a pressurised system without a barrier?! "
How do you come to such a weird idea? The air pressure gets lower when you go higher. You can feel and measure that (you feel the pressure change in your ears in a high elevator; and altimeters usually work by measuring the air pressure).
- sea level: 1013 hPa
- top of Mount Everest: 325 hPa
- cruise altitude of airliners: 191 hPa
- 12 miles: 78 hPa
- 22 miles: 10 hPa
- 31 miles: 165 Pa
- 62 miles: 0.3 Pa
- somewhere between earth and moon: 0.00000001 Pa
- somewhere in open space: 0.00000000000001 Pa
I don't know what pressure threshold you use to talk of a "vacuum". There are common used definition to distinguish between a "low (or rough) vacuum", a "medium (or fine) vacuum", a "high vacuum", a "ultra-high vacuum" and "extreme-high vacuum".
"Space is dogshit. Anyone who believes in it is a mong"
The problem of you guys is that you have totally misconceptions about "space". And the biggest is, that you think that space is something special. But it isn't. As I explained, there is not even a real definition where it begins. Let's say we all live in space. I meanwhile prefer to even avoid the term, becuase it means nothing and just leads to misconceptions. Let's just talk about altitude/distance to earth. And if you want to know the conditions for that certain altitude/distance to earth (gravity, temperature, air pressure, radiation,...) then calculate it or look it up. Why are some people so obsessed with the question if something is in space or not? I don't get it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First of all, your argument with the spinning is of course ridiculous. You deny the existence of Newtons first law of motion, although we experience it in every day life all the time. Imagine you are flying in a big transportation aircraft with 500mph. Now you draw in the back end of the plane a circle on the floor and write "Los Angeles" in it. And at the front of the plane you draw a circle on the floor and write "New York" into it. Now you have a drone or a little R/C-airplane. And you fly from "Los Angeles" to "New York", so inside the big aircraft, while it is flying with 500mph. Do you think it makes any difference if you fly from "LA" to "NY" or from "NY" to "LA"? No, of course not. It is completely irrelvent, if the big transportation airplane is flying at all. But I don't want to discuss about the spinning or anything else concerning the world view, just about the shape of the earth.
And you still have absolutly no idea about the impact that wrong maps would have. If you come to a new city and you buy a city map, do you really think "Oh, I guess I just have to believe that the map is true, but I have no possibilty to find out if it actually looks like that"? I don't think so. Instead you can say "I am hungry, according to the map, there is one McDonalds when I go to left in 3km, and another one when I go to the right in only". And you can go there, and you can estimate how long you will walk. And you would notice if the left one would be closer than the right one - and then you would know that the map is wrong. And you can do it for all maps of course, not only for city maps, but for larger scales. I really wonder at which point flat earthers stop to say "This map is correct and we would find out if it was wrong" and start to say "We can only trust the authorities but we cannot find out if the map is true". It makes no sense to distinguish in that way. Take Google Earth and zoom so strong into it that you see streets in a city. So at this point you believe that it is correct, right? So now you zoom out. At which point to you think it suddenly become wrong? How should that work?
You mention pilots, but what about the airlines? Who prevents you from working at an airline and come into the position where people decide, which routes they will offer? Who prevents you from starting an airline? Or a travel office that charters airplanes? What about all the logistic companies who run container ships all around the earth? What about all the private people who just travel the earth with ships and airplanes by themselves? What about the particpants of the Vendee Globe?
Do the companies that sell maps of cities or countries think "I hope people will never actually use these maps, and just look at them instead"? No, that would be ridiculous. And in the same way it would be ridiculous to think that the "elites" presents us the globe and say "I hope they will never actually use the globe, because then they would notice, that it is not an actual model of the earth".
But as flat earthers are religious fanatics (and that doesn't have do mean, that they really are religious in a typical way, "flat earth" itself can be the religion) it doesn't make sense to actually debate with them. They claim that they want to find out the truth. But that is wrong, they don't want the truth. Instead, they WANT that they earth is not a globe. They WANT that there is a big conspiracy. But the good thing is: We just have to wait. I really like it, that the FE community is grwowing, and I hope that they organize better. BEcause then they don't have an excuses for not doing actual research. So charter ships and airplanes and fly around the earth to find out, how it really looks. I am just waiting for a working flat earth map. Airlines, Logistic companies and travellers will be happy to see, that they did not use the shortest routes until now, because they uses the wrong maps all the time.
Another good Idea is: How about debunking the system from the inside? How about go to a university and study aerospace engineering? According to flkat earthers, they would be the first one who actually would use the knowledge that you get there. They realyl think, that students there learn how rockets works, but all the students sit there and just think "Oh, interesting", but nobody actually wants to build rockets later.
But I am afraid that they will not do it. They prefer to stay in the victim role, sit at home and say "They are all lying to us!!!"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The air pressure becomes thinner qucikly when you go high, you can easily measure that. You even can feel the pressure change in your ears when you use a high and fast elevator. So at sea level we have 1013 hPa, already at the top of Mount Everest we have only 325 hPa, at 13 km (maximum altitude of regular airliners) it is 191 hPa. At 50 km only 165 Pa. At 100 km (the most used definition for the beginning of space, which is of course arbitrary) it is 0.3 Pa.
So how do you explain that 1013 hPa can exist "next to" 325 hPa without a physical barrier? Where do you think is the "dome"? You know that you have the problem that there is already vaccuum then at the top, but still inside the dome, so your argument is completely worthless? And when you come with nonsense like "Well,that is just a pressure gradiant, that is something different" then I say: OK, then the entire universe is enclosed, and we just have pressure gradiants in the universe, so no problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why should a rocket engine not work in a vacuum? Reaction engines (not only rocket engines, but also jet engines) work by Newton's third law. Not by "pushing against the air". When you sit in a wheelchair with a bowling ball in your hand and then throw it away from you then you will roll backwards. And no, the reason is NOT "the ball pushes against the air". You can move forward in a boat when you have a bucket of stones and throw them to the back. And you feel the recoil of a gun not because "the bullet pushes against the air", instead you would also feel the recoil in a vacuum. That is how reaction engine works. They shoot out gas to the back, so the rocket moves forward with the same momentum (momentum = mass * velocity). Rocket engine always worked like that, also down here on earth. It is amazing how you really think that not even the engineers who design rocket engines don't know how they work, but you know how they work.
But let's assume for a moment that I believe your theory, then I want to learn more about it. So what is the relation between the air density/air pressure and the thrust?
Is it like: The rocket engine produces the same thrust all the time, also when the air pressure becomes lower, but then there is a threshold and when it goes belong that threshold it suddenly has no thrust anymore at all? If yes, what is the threshold?
Or is there a relation between air pressure and thrust, so like "half the air pressure, half the thrust"? If yes, what is the exact formula? Or is it a combination of threshold and relation?
Air pressure at sea level: 1013 hPa
at 5 km altitude : 533 hPa
at 10 km: 281 hPa
at 20 km: 78 hPa
at 50 km: 165 Pa
at 100 km: 0.3 hPa
in low earth orbit: 10…1 μPa
outer van Allen Belt: 100 nPa…10 pPa
at geostationary orbit: 1fPa
So up to which altitude do rockets work? Very fast jet airplanes only reach the high speeds in higher altitude, so where is less air: Does that fit to your theory?
2
-
2
-
2
-
" da spielt der direkte Konkurrent Audi Q4 etron aber schon in einer anderen Liga. "
Der sieht halt innen und außen wie ein Audi aus. Manche wollen eben das bewusst nicht und finden das langweilig. Ich find das Ioniq 5 Design durchaus gut. Ich find das "Golf-Design" interessant, also dass er durch den langen Radstand wie ein Kompakter aussieht. Und innen ist diese offene Gestaltung cool. Am Ende ist es Geschmackssache, und das schöne ist, dass in der Klasse da bald für jeden was dabei ist. Selbst im Konzern selbst: Der technische Bruder Kia EV6 sieht komplett anders aus.
"Technisch dürften sie sich auch nicht viel nehmen."
Also bezüglich Ladeleistung definitiv. Der Audi lädt bis maximal 125 kW, der Ioniq mit bis 220 kW, und ist entsprechend schneller. In nur 18 Minuten von 10% auf 20% zu laden ist für langstrecke schon cool. Der Audi wird wohl 28 Minuten brauchen. Hyundai war bisher auch für die Effizient bekannt, werden wir sehen. Also der Verbrauch könnte geringer sein als beim Audi - und damit auch die "Kilometer pro Minute" die man lädt.
"Tesla macht das auch nicht."
Eigentlich ist das, was Tesla macht, Overkill. Die Laden auch mit über 200 kW, aber das bei noch 400 Volt. Ballern da also sehr hohe Ströme über die Leitung, ich glaube das liegt sogar außerhalb der eigentlichen Spezifikationen von CCS. Zumindest gibt es auch meines Wissens keine nicht-Tesla-Säule mit nur 400 Volt, die mehr als 150 kW lädt. Und an neueren Tesla Superchargern wurde auch schon gesichtete, dass auf dem Typenschild steht, dass diese bis zu 1000 Volt können. Also wird in Zukunft möglicherweise auch Tesla umsteigen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elisemueller7158 Well, I could have said "No, why should that be the case?" Because your argument doesn' make sense, I didn't really know what I could say to it. However, I gladly explain it to you. It is weird how people argue against gravity as if it would be against their everyday life experience but that is not the case. Like any other scientific theory Newton didn't came up with it from nothing, instead he just observed things, so made physical laws based on the things he experienced.
You feel all the time, that gravity is a force that is proportional to the mass. If you lay under an object with a mass of 1000 kg it will crush you. But if you lay under an object that has a mass of only 1 kg it will not crush you. Because due to gravity, the 1000 kg object pushes with a force of about 9800 N on your body, while the 1kg object pushes with only 9.8 N. The formula for gravity is:
(gravitational constant) x (mass of object 1) x (mass of object 2) /(distance between the center of the objects)^2
Every kitchen scale actually measures a force, not a mass. So if the kitches scale just stands there in a normal condition (so you don't push on it, you are not in a free falling or accelerating elevator) it shows gravity. BTW, as the earth is not a perfect sphere (so gravity is higher at the poles) and rotates (so there is a centrifugal force at the equator), a scale will show a different result at the poles than at the equator. Yes, thing weigh less at the equator than at the poles. That is a measurable fact.
And so of course all the water will crush you when you are on the ground of the ocean. And if you are on a planet with much higher gravity than earth, than you will also be crushed under the weight of your own body.
2
-
@elisemueller7158
Wow, everytime it is the same with you guys. You make stupid claims, for example about gravity. Then I explain it in a detailed way and ask you questions. And then you completly ignore my comment (because you don't have any arguments) and instead jump to the nex bullshit claim, that has nothing to to with your first claim.
"Nobody has been to the North or South pole."
Are you kidding? That is just a bullshit claim. I also can say "Nobody has ever been to Australia". It so so ridiculous that I don't even have to bring proofs. Instead the burden of proof is on you. You can just book trips to the north pole. So what are you talking about?
But why does that even matter? Here is a globe from 1850, back then actually nobody have ever been to the poles:
https://www.dorotheum.com/fileadmin/lot-images/39D140505/normal/seltener-erdglobus-von-johann-peter-salziger-_-1853-3871162.jpg
It is just an example. Of course we had accurate globes back then. Why the hell should it be neccessary to go to the poles to find ou the shape of the earth? How do you think maps are created? Do you think that it is neccessary to go into every building or to see the city from high above to create a city map? No! Then why do you think it is neccessary to visit every single place on earth or to see the earth from far away to create a world map ? That doesn't make any sense. So you really believe that we cannot find out the actual distance between two cities and that the elite prevents us from doing so? You really think that nobody ever noticed that all maps are wrong, although they are used by thousands of people all the time? We have maps that are used and they obviously work. Flat earther claim that they are wrong. But they neither can prove that the official maps are wrong, nor can they provide a working flat earth map. And it is not about science or theories. Me as a normal guy just wants to measure the distance between two cities, so I can estimate how long the flight takes. I can just take a 100 year old globe from the shelf and do it and it works. So give me your better flat earth map that I can use for that! Oh, you can't? Then why should I even listen to your bullshit! You have nothing to offer. We make models of the earth because we can use the model in our everyday life. Who came up with the insane idea, that maps are something to manipulate the people?
And it is not important what Findmy Phone said. Actually it is a stupid idea to think, that "going high up" is a proper or necessary method to find out the shape of the earth. You just have to see a sunset at the beach to know that it is not flat. People in ancient Greece already knew that, it is not that hard. Because it is quite obvious. It is amazing how flat earthers really don't trust their own senses but instead fell for this "the sun just moves away, it is perspective" bullshit. But they are like sheep and beleive all that crap they see in Flat earth youtube videos without questioning it.
And please don't come with NASA or that videos from space are fake. How does that matter? NASA is a space agency, not an earth agency. Sailors and travellers explored the earth, found out how it looks like, created maps... We don't need pictures from space for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GShock112 " does it matter?" Yes. If you don't know how strong the radition dose is, then how can you say, that it is impossible to pass? How do you even know that the belt exist? It is so funny to always read that people actually use the Van Allen Belt as an argument against the moon landing. It doesn't make any sense. The same people, that tells you that there is a radiation belt, also tells you, that it is possible to pass it without dying. So why do you believe them when they say, that the belt exist, but you don't believe them, when they say the passed it?
Imagine I would tell somebody that I have a natural hot tub in the backyard. And that I sometimes go into a for a short time, before it gets too warm. And then he says "You are lying, you don't go into the tub. It is impossile to go, you would die or at least get injured, because it is too hot!" Don't you think that the argument of that guy is stupid? I have never claimed, that the water is so hot, that you will get injured.
And why do you think that "They" will always say sokmething different? The Van Allen Belt is well discoverd, you find much data about it. You find also all the data about the Apollo missions. So what are you even talking about?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"WHAT AN IDIOT|!!!! "
Are you talking about yourself?
"Tesla is way better then Taycan"
Concerning what? Range or interior space? Well, yes. But this is a drag race, so it is not about it.
"BUT Teycan has x2 GEAR, which helps it to speed up faster"
Yes. You really want to say that means it is "Apples and trouses"? Are you kidding? What's next you compare two cars, one has a 500 HP, the others has 600 HP, the 600 HP wins and you "That is Apple ans trouses, if the other car would have also 600 HP it would win". How stupid is that? Oh, and I hope when in the future the Taycan races against the Tesla Roadster and the Tesla Model S Plaid, and the Taycan loses, then you will also be so fair and say "That is apple and trouses, the teslas have three motors, the Taycan only has two motors".
"But therefore Taycan will need more service and sill break more. "
That is just a stupid claim without any evidence.
2
-
@malwynn5372 Have you really never considerd, that it depends on the size of an object if you can see it or not, and not only the distance? I can see a high mountain with the naked eye, that is many miles away. But I cannot see a mosqito that is only several yards away. You can see the Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, although it is 2.5 million light years (!)away. But Pluto was discovered only in 1930 and you still cannot see it with an amateur telescope.
And it is not only distance, but brightness. We can see objects that shine by themselves (so stars), but it become harder to nearly impossible when they don't shine by themselves but only are enlightend by stars. We easily can see the closer planets, but Pluto is already so far away from the sun that it is quite dark and hard to see with telescopes. And Planet 9 is assumed to be more then ten times further away than Pluto. The sky is full of stars that are hundreds or thousands of light years away and we can see them with the naked eye. But we found the first exoplanets (so planets that orbit around another star than the sun) not before the 1980s. The closest star is "only" 4.5 lightyears away, but we discovered a planet that orbits around it only in 2016. We cannot see it directly, but only because we could see that the star becomes darker periodically (when the planet passes the star).
Go out at night. You easily can see the moon and many stars, even without a telescope. Now somebody tells you, that there is a theory, that there is a pea somewhere in the sky about two miles away. Try to find it with binoculars or amateur telescopes. Good luck :-)
2
-
2
-
Do you really think that we cannot find out the actual distance between two cities, and that nobody ever noticed that all maps are wrong? Thousands of people travel around the earth all the time, for decades and centuries (that is how maps were created), people drive around, fly around... logistic companies send container ships, airplanes, traines, trucks... And nobody noticed something like "Hmm, strange, according to the map the way should have been 1000 miles, I just travelled only 500 miles and I am already there".
So you actually believe that the earth looks like on the Gleason map? That the distance from Brisbane to Perth is about the same as the distance from Cairo to Cape Town? That the proportion of Australia are like that and not like on the globe? That a circumnavigation along the 45° northern latitude is waaay shorter than a circumnaviagtion along the 45° southern latitude?
Do you even have a scale for the map? I mean, that is the essential thing, because a map has nothing to do with some idealogy, it is just a tool, that you use. So I take it to measure a distance on the map. So I an estimate how long a trip will take, how much fuel I need etc. I can take a globe from 1900 (so much before NASA or even airplanes; The idea that you have to see the earth from high above to know how it looks like is stupid), measure a distance, and can estimate how long a flight will take. And it works. Because that is how the earth looks like.
BTW a sunset at the beach proves that earth is not flat. And please, trust your eyes and your brain that God gave you. Don't listen to charlatans on the internet who describe a sunset as "The sun goes further away and is finally so far away that you cannot see it anymore". That is NOT what you see.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
SmartElectricCar: It is an issue. For many ICE-car-fans who don't like EVs the main issue with EVs is charging time. They say: "I will only buy an EV, if I can charge 300 miles within 5 minutes". Then EV-Fans argue: "You should change your mindset, EVs can charge when they just stand around anyway, you don't have to go to gas station regulray, instead you car is fully charged every morning. You only need quick chargers for long distances".
But that argumentation doesn't work, if you don't have the possibility to charge your car at home or at work. Superchargers are all over the place? No. There are definitly less superchargers than gas stations. And even in the USA you can easily live somewhere, where the next supercharger is 30 miles away. Or more. But even if it is only 10 miles, but it is not on your regular commute: So you drive every week 10 miles to the "gas station", then you wait at least 30 Minutes (you will only have 80% then; 100% takes more than an hour) to "tank up" your car, than 10 miles back to home. So you even lose 20 miles of range just because for the charging procedure. You really want to say, that it is "no issue"? Of course you can say "It works". Things also worked in the 19th century, where you neede several hours for just shopping in the next big city. But you will not convince anybody, that EVs are as practical as ICE cars with this.
And even Tesla sees the superchargers not as replacement for all gas station (so where you regulary go to charge your car) but more as a thing to make long distance trips possible. So I think even Elon Musk would agree, that when you don't have the possibilty to charge your car ar home or at work, thah an EV probably is not the best solution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Science is about observation."
I totally agree.
"You didn't observe (with your eyes) that the earth is spinning/rotating or moving in any direction.
"
You observe, that the sun, the moon and the stars rotate around you. But that can mean both: Either you are fixed and the enviroment is moving or the other way around.
I don't undertand why you guys always mix up "globe model " and "heliocentric model". Or the "globe" and the "rotation". That are complete indpendent things. People know since more than 2000 years that earth probably is a sphere. By OBSERVATION. You only have to see a sunset at the beach to know that earth is not flat. Period. This "perspective"-explanation ("The sun moves away and finally is so far away that you cannot see it anymore") is bullshit. It is just not what I see, with my own eyes. How can people even come to that supid idea (well, I know: They have seen it in a "flat earth video on youtube and just parrot it, that is what they do all the time, they never think for themselves, never come to original ideas). And where are the videos of flat earthers who brings back the sun with their Nikon P900 after sunset?
If I have never thought about how the earth looks and somebody show me two models:
a) A spherical earth (with a sun that orbits around the earth or fixed sund with a rotating earth)
b) A flat earth (with a sun that circles above the flat earth)
And they ask me which model matches with my observation (so how the sun moves over the horizon and finally sets in the evening), then it is 100% model (a). Of course, who would ever think it is (b)? How can you have such a lack of visual thinking?
But feel free to prove it with a model! So create a 3D model in a computer simulation. Show me a model of a flat earth where a sunset looks like a sunset in reality. Just do it! Where is it? And build a model based on the official data - by that you can actually debunk it, if the model doesn't match with observations in reality. Where is that? Why haven't any flat earther done that? You don't even try to actually debunk the globe!
And we have travelled the earth so we know how it looks like. Do you really think that we need aerial photos of a city to create an accurate city map? Probably not. Then why do you think that we need a photo taken far away from earth to create a world map? That doesn't make any sense! You really believe that all maps are wrong but nobody noticed it yet. You believe that we cannot find out the actual distance between two cities - although the maps (that shows these distances) were created by travelling around the in the first place.
I can take a 100 year old globe from the shelf, measure the distance between two cities and so can estimate how long a flight will take. And it works! Can I do that with your flat earth model? Since five years flat earthers claim, that the official maps do not work. But they neither could provide any evidence that they don't work, nor could they provide a working flat earth map. You don't even realize that globe earth is APPLIED science. We can USE the globe model and it WORKS. In everyday life. So how stupid is it to come with nonsense theories? Provide something that can be used!
Ok, but back to the rotation. That is of course not so easy to find out like the spheroid shape, and so people come to the idea much later. How? By OBSERVATIONS. I wonder if you guys actually ever done real observations that astronomers do for centuries. For examples observe the motion of the planets (you probably would not even notice that there are five stars at the sky that move independet from the rest). Copernicus noticed, that for example Mars changes its speed and make weird loops. That did not make much sense to him. But when you instead put the sun and not the earth in the center, then it makes much more sense, because then Mars makes a nice constant orbit around the sun. You can do the observation by yourself. Feel free!
"It's impossible for the earth to be spinning because the earth doesn't have the ramifications/effects of said spin."
Well, because of the centrifugal force (and also the oblated poles, so gravity is different) objects weigh less at the equator than at the poles. That is a simple fact. You can OBSERVE that.
"You didn't observe (with your eyes) that the surface of water is curving on a lake or ocean."
it is so big that it is barely observable. But again, you can just build a simulation based on the official data and look if it matches with your observations. Here somebody have done it so you don't have to do it by yourself:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Finding+the+Curvature+of+the+Earth%3A+Stand%2DAlone+App
"You can videotape a stationary earth from a helicopter."
You also can videotape a stationaiy airplane from a drone, that hovers inside of the airplane. Although the airplane moves with 800 km/h. You completly ignore Newtonians mechanics, although that is used (APPLIED science, you know?) by engineers since 300 years.
"It's impossible to debunk flat earth because the spin and curved water are impossible."
It is easy to debunk flat earth, because it is impossible, that the sun would set as a whole circle behind the horizon. It is easy to debunk flat earth because L.A. is further away from Sidney than Santiago de Chile is away from Sidney.
Science is about creating models based on observations. The official models work, they match with reality, we can use them to make predictions. Where is your working flat earth model?
"The spinning globe is a belief, hearsay, pseudoscience, fairy tale, and lie because part of a spinning globe cannot be observed with your eyes at 35,000 feet."
That is the case for flat earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Das Problem ist, dass der Moderator nicht sagt, nach welchem Messverfahren. Wenn du mal auf die amerikanische Version der Tesla Website gehst, wirst du sehen, dass das Model X 100D dort nicht mit 565km, sondern nur mit 295 Meilen (also 475 km) angegeben ist. Das liegt einfach an unterschiedlichen Messverfahren. In den USA ist die Angabe nach EPA gesetzlich vorgeschrieben, in Deutschland (noch) nach NEFZ. Aber ab September gilt in Deutschland der WLTP - und die hier im Video genannten 400km sind auch schon nach WLTP, und daher nicht mit den 565 NEFZ-Kilomtern des Model X zu vergleichen.
Die Formulierung "nutzbare Reichweite" oder "reelle Reichweite" oder "Alltagsreichweite" finde ich auch immer etwas komisch. Es ist schlichte Physik, dass ein Auto bei hohen Geschwindigkeiten mehr verbraucht. Wenn ich nur im Stadtverkehr und gelegentlich mal auf der Landstraße unterwegs bin, dann kann ich durchaus auf die NEFZ-Reichweite kommen, vielleicht sogar auf mehr. Auf der Autobahn dagegen natürlich nicht mehr, wenn man da auch mal 150km/h fährt, sieht es richtig schlecht aus.
Ich hoffe Journalisten gewöhnen sich endlich mal an bei Reichweiten einfach anzugeben nach welchem Norm. Das hat dann auch nichts mit "HAha, Werksangbe, alles geschummelte Laborwerte, in echt viel weniger", sondern ist eben schlicht und ergreifend die Reichweite nach einem definierten Zyklus oder definierten Bedinugngen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't want to say, that the new definition is good, but your arguments are not perfect either. First of all, it is not about size. The difference between "planet" and "dwarf planet" is, that the latter one hasn't clean its orbit.
And this is also a bit weird:
"If it's a dwarf planet, that's still a planet, not comet or asteroid. "
They could have come up with a name, that doesn't include "planet", would you be satisfied then? Exactly that happened in the 1850s. We had 13 planets back then. But we found more and more between Mars and Jupiter. So a new category was defined and Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vestra and Astrea were now "asteroids" and not planets anymore. And now Ceres was again changed to "dwarf planet"...
"Each planet should be Sol1 to Sol 12, and more"
The interesting question then is: How does the star fleet in Star Trek define "planet"? Which planet would be Sol 5? Would it be Ceres? Or Jupiter? Or what?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@penelopepitstoppp
"Get your face out of your phone and LOOK UP, look ALL around. THINK."
I totally agree, so that is a good recommendation. Observe a sunset at the beach and think about it. What you see there is not possible on a flat earth (well, it would, when it is a disc and the edge is at the horizon, but that is obviously not the case). When you go to a high tower you see the sunset again, so it is later there. That also would not happen on a flat earth. An yes, people in the past had no smart devices, internet or TV. So they observed the sky, so for example the movement of the planets. And they observed, that they make weird movements, so changing speed and make loops, which doesn't make much sense for a natural motion. But when you instead think, that not the earth is the center, but the sun and the planets and the earth move around the sun, it makes much more sense, because then they move constantly. So observation and thinking brings us to the heliocentric model.
It is really funny that you recommend other people to "Go outside and get your face out of your phone and LOOK UP, look ALL around. " While your world view is not based on that. Instead your world view is based on an old book and on youtube videos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MrJuggernaute
"You don't have to care if you don't want to know."
Well, I wan to know how the earth looks like. So for example to know how long the distance is between City A and city B, to know how long a trip will go. Simple practical thingsHow can the bible help me for that?
And are you even aware that satellites are normal business, run by normal privat companies that offer services to normal customers? The same for rockets, there are many start up companies in that field meanwile. Just apply there for a job or found such a company by yourself, nobody prevents you from doing so. Why should a company like Iridum (who run a satellite communication network) lie about how there service works? As a customer I only care that it works (and it does, with an iridum phone you can make phone calls everywhere, also in the middle of the ocean or the desert ) and not how it works.
And "lack of critical thinking and common sense":
You describe flat earthers here, right? Because there is absolutly no critical thinking in the flat earth community. They blindly believe what they see in flat earth videos on youtube. They don't question it, they don't do research about it. Basicly it is all in Eric Dubays "200 proofs". For years I look into flat earth and see what flat earthers write in comment section - and they just parrot over and over the same stuff. Absolutly no progress, no own ideas, no new stuff.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The round earthers also believe the earth is spinning at 1,030 mph. "
At the equtor, yes. It makes one rotation within 24 hours.
"Do you have any idea what the earth would like when 700mph winds tear into you and your home? "
The atmosphere moves with the earth.
" How about taking a helicopter ride, lift off, hover in the air for ten min, then land in the same spot you took off from. Hmmmmm, shouldn't we have landed hundreds of miles away if the earth is spinning?"
How about taking a drone inside of an airplane. The drone lifts off from the floor of the airplane, hovers in the air for ten minutes then land in the same spot as it took from. Hmm, shouldn't the drone crash at the back of the airplane when the airplane is flying with 500 mph?
And don't come with " but the airplane is closed". That is not the reason why the drone moves together with the plane. Instead it is inertia. Newtons first law of motion. Everything keeps it state of motion (so doesn't accerlate, decelerate, or change directions),unless it is affetced by a force. The drone in the airplane already moves with 500 mph, so it keeps on moving with 500 mph, also after it has left the ground. And so the helicopter at the equator already moves with 1,030 mph, when it still rests on the ground and just keeps on moving with that speed after it has left the ground.
You experience that all the time in your everyday life. When you throw a stone and it keeps on moving after it has left your hand. When you ride a biciyle and you keep on rolling, also after you stop to pedal. It is used by engineers. Newton's laws of motion are not made up to explain your alleged problems with a spinning earth. Instead it is basic APPLIED science, used down here on earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I don't identify myself as a Democrat". As a German that is weird to hear. Yes, also hear tribalism becomes stronger, but it seems that the American political system (that results in having only two parties) enforces that. We used to have our big two parties in our parliament, but they get smaller and smaller. Today we have six parties in the German parliament. The Trump situation for example would not happen here, because here either Trump would have made his own party, or the "Lincoln project"/"Republicans against Trump"/... guys would leave and make their own party.
I guess nobody in Germany would say that he or she "identifies" as a voter of a certain parties (well, at the moment maybe some AfD voters...). We just vote for a party and that can change. And there is more than "left" and "right".
- What does my views on climate change have to do with my views on immigration policy?
- what does my views on public healthcare have to do with my views on gay marriage?
- What does my views on the Palestine conflict have to do with my views on the covid rules?
There are many of these topics, to me it is absurd to think that you either "identify as a Democrat" (and so your views have to are A, B, C, D, E...) or you "identify as a Republican" (and so your views have to be X,Y,Z...)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michelletackett9489
"Because there are fingerprints, you gotta have some sort of empirical evidence. "
Yes, that is exactly how science work. We make observations (fingerprints) and build a theory on that (He was the murderer)
"There is none for the Big Bang."
So you think somebody just randomly came up with the idea? Are you serious? No. We observe the red shift. We conclude that it means that the universe is expanding. Have you a better theory for the rad shift? It makes sense to conclude that the expansion didn't just started but that it always expanded so that there was a point in the past where it started. We can bring particles in particle colliders up to a such high energy state like they should have been shortly after the big bang. And we have discoverd the cosmic microwave background, which counts as one of the most important evidences for the big bang.
I wonder if you even tried to look up the path to the big bang theory. Actually understanding how a scientist came to a theory (and in the best case make his experiments and observations by yourself) is what you learn when you study science, and not just the theory itself.
"A small piece of energy got so hot that it expanded into trillions of miles of particles and they happened to align and make the galaxies. "
"Got so hot" seems not really correct. It already is so hot in the moment that we even think of the "beginning of the universe".And we don't know where it comes from.
"I don't have a theory"
That is fair and I respect that much more than somebody who just say "It was God"
"I think it's arrogant to think we know what happened. "
Well, yes, in general I understand what you want to say. When some creationists try to provoke with the question "And who started the big bang??? Where does the singularity come from???" then the honest and fine answer is "We don't know". But we don't have to say that for what happens after the big bang. We have evidence for that.
"Holy crap, that's stupid."
How? We know and observe that particles and molecules found together, first the subparticles. In particle colliders we do exact that, we simulate the situation immediatly after the big bang, so bring particles to extreme high energy state and can observe what subparticles they are made of and to what particles the then connect. And because of gravity the molecules come together, so after the Big Bang you have hydrogen molecules that come together, more and more because of gravity, so they form stars. And getting bigger the pressure becomes so high that nuclear fusion happens and the star produces energy and light and helium. We understand the processes that brought higher elements. And again, particles that flow around get conectced on chemical ways and build molecules, but then also just mechanical because of gravity. So dust finally stick together and build planets and moons etc. We observe all of that.
2
-
"Die echte Zukunft gehört dem Wasserstoff.
"
Wenn ich aber als Kunde sehe, dass der Preis pro Kilometer bei einem BEV viel niedriger ist als bei einem FCEV, dann überlege ich mir vielleicht, ob mir das für die paar Langstrecken, die man so macht, überhaupt wert ist. Ein BEV ist im idealfall übrigens morgens immer voll geladen, ich muss nie zu einer Tankstelle, eben nur bei langen strecken.
Ich bin übrigens kein extremer Verfechter weder von der einen Seite noch von der anderen. Ich glaube aber kaum, dass ein Wasserstoff-Kleinstwagen je Sinn machen wird (ich glaube das sieht selbst Toyota ein), umgekehrt halte ich es für fraglich, Sattelschlepper mit Tonnen von Batterien rumfahren zu lassen.
2
-
"Wouldn't it be weird if the 35% more expensive sports car din't win over the familie car ? "
No.
Why should a "sports car" always be quicker than a "family car" in a drag race? Here is also a sports car that loses against a family car:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhKyb6hXzb0
Which is not a surprise, the family car has much more horse power than the sports car, and also on paper it has a lower 0-60 time. Oh, and the family car is als cheaper here.
Why should the more expensive car always be faster in a drag race? Porsches price politics were always high, you also pay for options much. The turbo S here is ridiculously more expensive than the entry version of the Taycan, the 4S (here in Germany: 103,800 € vs 181,600 €). It also includes things like the ceramic brakes, that doesn't help on the drag strip, but are an 9,500 € option for the entry version. The Turbo S also has rear wheel steering (not included in the entry version) - the Model S doesn't have it. And doesn't give you a better result on the drag strip.
I just have configured a Taycan. So it starts as the "Taycan 4S" for 103.800 €. I packed it with options and I came to 175,000 €! And none of the options increases the perfomance, so it still would be not faster than the 103,800 € version!
There are cars like the Dodge Demon that are not that expensive but the fastest on the drag strip. In general you often get much power for little money when you buy an America car. When you buy a Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren,... you pay for more than just for a low quater-mile-time.
"Also given that Tesla already have a faster model out yet "
Which one?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tim Lang Hast du dir den Link überhaupt angeschaut? Ich beziehe mich doch überhaupt nicht auf WIkipedia als Quelle.Ich hatte nur keine Lust, die einzelnen Autonomie-Level hier nochmal selbst aufzulisten. Ich hätte das auch einfach per Copy&Paste hier einfügen können, aber wozu? Also verlinke ich das einfach. Das mach ich oft mit der Wikipedia. Aber nicht im Sinne von "Hier, in der Wikipedia steht das, das muss also richtig sein!!!!" sondern einfach, um zu sagen "Hier, lies selbst". Die Wikipedia ist da einfach sehr oft eine sehr gute Zusammenfassung bzw. erster Anlaufpunkt. Und wie bei guten Artikeln üblich, sind dort im Artikel dann auch in diesem Fall die entsprechenden Quellen angegeben. Ich hab übrigens in diesem Fall auch überhaupt nicht "Recherchiert" und auch nicht spontan gegoogelt. Wer sich ein wenig mit Autos bzw. autonomen Fahren beschäftigt, hat auch in den letzten Jahren schon in diversen Medien mitbekommen, dass man da eben diese Level definiert hat. Das ist keine Meinung, kein Geheimwissen,... sondern eher recht banales Wissen, da muss ich nicht nach "vertrauenswürdigen Quellen" recherchieren.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lilleBoyy "im Gegensatz zu VW, wo es nur Studien und Computer Renderings gibt :) "
Komisch, dass schon viele Menschen seit ein paar jahren in elektrischen Golfs und Ups rumfahren.
"deutsche Autohersteller haben verpennt, wer das nicht einsieht hat definitiv ne Brille auf. "
Und wer immer noch was von "die pennen noch, da kommt nie was, immer nur Ankündigen" labert, hat auch definitiv eine Brille auf. Offenbar hast du nicht mitbekommen, dass sie spätestens seit 2015 nicht mehr schlafen sondern seitdem Autos vorstellen, die dann tatsächlich auf den Markt kommen.
"Um das aufzuholen müssen sich VAG und co ziemlich ins Zeug legen und geld investieren, nicht jedes Jahr noch mehr gewinne einfahren, sondern auch extrem investieren. Aber das taugt piech und co ja nicht."
Der Vorwurf ist gerade beim VW-Konzern lächerlich, die wohl von allen etablierten Herstellern die massivesten E-Auto-Investitionen machen und die ambitionierteste E-auto-Roadmap haben.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually it would be weird IF you would see stars. This is in open daylight. Have you ever seen stars at day? Do you have the slightest experience with photography? Do you know why cameras have an HDR mode and what it does? You also can send a balloon with a camera by yourself up to altitudes where the sky is already black. Many people do that, Youtube is full of it (search for "Ballon to space", "GoPro to space", "Startosphere balloon..."). You don't see stars on any of them.
And we know where the ISS is, all the time, all data about it is public. You can just look online where it is at the moment, ther are also Apps for your smartphone. You also can look up when it will pass in front of the moon or the sun in your area the next time, there you can see its sillouette. Just look it up , and go there with a telescope or a high zoom camera. Again, many people do this, it is a regular thing, search youtube for "ISS transit".
2
-
2
-
shadi07191: Koenigsegg wurde 1994 gegründet, Bugatti (damit meien ich den Hersteller des Chiron) dagegen erst 1998. Allerdings hatten die Jungs bei Volkswagen durchaus schon etwas mehr Erfahrung im Automobilbau.
Das "Fanboy"-Argument ist dennoch quatsch. Wenn ich mir so YouTube-Kommentare zu Supersportwagen ansehe, habe ich das Gefühl, dass es deutlich mehr Koenigsegg-Fanboys gibt. Letztlich ist das alles lächerlich, da streiten sich Leute, die noch nie im Leben eines der beiden Fahrzeuge gefahren sind (viele wahrscheinlich noch nicht mal in echt gesehen, geschweige denn drin gesessen haben) darüber, welches Auto besser ist. Letztlich ist einfach die Idee hinter den Autos doch schon eine andere. Vom Agera RS werden grad mal 25 Stück gebaut, vom One:1 nur sechs. Ich will Koenigsegg nicht schlecht machen, aber die gehen für mich eher in Richtung " kleiner Tuning-Laden". Also da werden eine handvoll hochgezüchte einzelne Rennwagen hergestellt. Das ist nichts schlechtes, aber kaum mit dem Konzept bei Bugatti zu vergleichen. Die sehen sich eher als Luxusauto hersteller, es werden immerhin 500 Stück vom Chiron gebaut, die Autos sollen sich eher anfühlen wie "normale" hochwertige Autos, die sich auch im Alltag entsprechend bewegen, auf entsprechende Langfristige Nutzung und Haltbarkeit ausgelegt sind, und faszinierender Weise dennoch einfach so 400km/h fahren können.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hmm, we don't have 2012 anymore, have you missed something? Or is that an American problem? Here in Europe the situation is:
a) AC charging: All electric cars that are sold in Europe (so also the European Teslas) have a type2 plug for that. I think it is even mandatory by law
b) DC fast charging: There are three standards, so it seems a bit more complicated:
- Chademo: The oldest standard (2010), from Japan. So mainly Japanese companies had it and still the standard there
- CCS: Defined in 2011 and already back then General Motors, Ford, BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen Group announced, that all their upcoming EVs will use CCS
- Tesla supercharger
But actually it is easy meanwhile, because CCS is the european standard. Period. The European Union recommend support it. When you install a public DC fast charger in Germany, it is mandotoray that it has at least CCS. Others are allowed, so there are many triple chargers out there (CCS, Chademo, Type 2), but many newer Fast Chargers are only CCS. Chademo is dying out, the only current car with Chademo in Europe is the Nissan Leaf, and people just don't understand why Nissan sells it here with Chademo instead of CCS. And now even Tesla changes to CCS: The European Model 3 doesn't have the Supercharger plug anymore, but CCS. That means two things: 1. You can fast charge a Model 3 not only at the Tesla superchargers, but also at all the other thousands of CCS chargers 2. Tesla converts all their European superchargers so that they have an addiotonally CCS-cable, so that the Model 3 can charge at the superchargers.
The situaion in America is maybe different, because the Tesla supercharger network is superior, and Chademo obviously is not dead there? However, there are "only" the three standard that I have list above in America, and at least all European and American car companies (except Tesla) sell their cars in the USA with CCS.
I don't know the AC situation. Do they all have Type 1 (except Tesla?). Probably yes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@beenac2473
"oh so mercedes can be charged with tesla superchargers?"
No, sorry, if that was no clear by me. It is the opposite in Europe (and only there): Teslas can charge at "all the other" chargers, but a Mercedes still not at a Tesla charger. But that is just Teslas decision. As I said, technically Tesla meanwhile uses the same plug as all the others - but Tesla doesn't allow that. Actually there was a bug with the superchargers last year that was spread on the internet, and so people charged their electric VW Golfs at the Tesla supercharger :-)
In the USA Tesla even uses anothe special plug. You can compare it a bit USB and Apple's Lightning Connector. So Everybody uses USB, it the standard. But only Apple uses its own plug. And so for electric cars, CCS is like USB. It is the standard. Every car maker uses CCS for their electric cars - only Tesla has its own plug. At least that is the situation in Europe, where CCS is more or less even pushed by laws. Japan had Chademo, China also has its own system. In the US tesla is very dominating.
So I don't know where you live, you have to look for your system there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"It is impossible to keep the gas fluid in a layer like on a globe which is an open system, "
is it? Maybe the universe as a whole is a closed system, and within that you only have different pressure levels. Would you accept that?
". For what reason did you go to the vacuum silo? "
Because he want to show that in a vacuum the all objects fall at the same rate.
" In proportion to the increase in height, the air pressure decreases because the molecular density of oxygen is rare, up to the upper layer of oxygen, up to the part of the space when that pressure cannot be measured and the measurement value shows, for example, 0 bar pressure."
So a unsensitive instrument shows 0 bar? Where is that? We actually can measure the pressure between moon and earth (1x10^-11 torr)and beyond moon (1x10^-17).
" the very action of the falling of those two objects, which are different in mass and their weights, destroy that famous fictional gravity, "
No. It confirms exactly Newton's model of gravity, of course. According to Newton gravity is a force between everything that has a mass, and that depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between the objects. To be exact the Formula for that force is:
gravitational constant * (mass of object 1)*(mass of object 2)/(distance between the two masses)^2
Eveyrthing that we observe and measure confirms that formula. Down here on earth we can simplify it, because the only relevant gravity is that between earth and smaller objects. An object with a mass of 1 kg has a weight of about 9.8 N. So is pulled to the ground with a force of 9.8 N. You feel and measure that. You see in the formula that when the mass is twice as high, also the force is twice as high, and yes, that is what we measure. And I say "about 9.8 N". Earth is not a perfect sphere, so at the equator you are further away from the center than at the poles. Together with the centrifugal force because of the rotation it means, that a scale (which claims to measure the mass, of course it actually measures a force) shows less at the equator than at the poles. Yes, that is a fact. When you want a very sensitive and exact scale, it needs to be calibrated to your location.
But when we talk about falling object and their accleration, we also of course need Newton's second law: Force = mass * acceleration. Every engineer uses that, and you experience that by yourself, that with same horse power a lighter car has a higher acceleration.
Combine that and you will see that every objects accelerates at the same rate in free fall, independent from their mass. Because with higher mass on the one hand the acceleration would be lower, but the force, that makes the acceleration here, is gravity. And that increases with the mass at the exact same rate. So at the end mass and force equals out. It is like a car, that automatically would get more horsepower when you put heavy stuff in it and so it keeps its acceleration.
"The silo object is located on the surface of the globe, and the experiment shows that the force of gravity does not work in the space of an empty, airless space, a vacuum"
What are you talking about? The objects are pulled to the ground because of gravity. In the vacuum you see pure gravity working. Exact how you would predict and calculate using Newton's formulas. Without gravity the objects would just stay where they are. But we can see and measure that they accelerate to the ground. We know and experience it everywhere else, that objects, that has a mass only accelerate, when a force is working on it. So there has to be a force. We call that force "gravity" (well, actually the force itself is "weight"; while "gravity" means the entire model).
"regardless of the mass in question, which is measured in kg,"
Yes, correct.
"Gravity is invented"
Gravity is a model that explains and describe what we see. And feel. And measure. And it works. We use it all the time. If you deny that there is a force, that pushes objects to the ground and that depends on its mass, then I guess you have no problem with it when put a 1000 kg block of iron on you while you lay on the ground. And you should lift any object, independet from their mass, because, you know, there is nothing like gravity. How does buyoncy and density helps and engineer to calculate how much force a helicopter has to produce, that has a mass of 2 tons, so that it hovers, without going up or down.
An object with a mass of 1 kg is pulled to the ground with a force of about 9.8 N. An object with 5 kg with 49 N, an object with 10 kg with 98 N. That is a measurable fact, and you also feel that. Please present your model, your physical theory that describes that. So that can be used to build stuff, engineer it, calculate what happens when we do stuff.
2
-
2
-
"Their symbol is literally 666 withing each other "
From the CERN FAQ:
The shapes in CERN’s current logo represent particle accelerators. The logo in this form dates back to 1968, when a decision was made to change the CERN logo from the original one, seen here. Some 114 new designs were proposed, many of which used CERN’s experiments as inspiration. The final design used the original lettering, surrounded by a schematic of a synchrotron, beam lines and particle tracks. Today’s logo is a simplified version of this.
", thier opening ceremony was bizzare satanic ritual,"
Let me guess: You have seen the opening ceremony of the Gotthard tunnel, which has absolutely nothing to do with CERN. But somebody on the internet claims that it was the opening ceremony of CERN. And you are so gullible and blindly believe it instead of looking it up.
" they have shiva state the hindu god of destruction at the door "
From the CERN FAQ:
The Shiva statue was a gift from India to celebrate its association with CERN, which started in the 1960’s and remains strong today. In the Hindu religion, Lord Shiva practiced Nataraj dance which symbolises Shakti, or life force. This deity was chosen by the Indian government because of a metaphor that was drawn between the cosmic dance of the Nataraj and the modern study of the ‘cosmic dance’ of subatomic particles. India is one of CERN’s associate member states. CERN is a multicultural organisation that welcomes scientists from more than 100 countries and 680 institutions. The Shiva statue is only one of the many statues and art pieces at CERN.
",this little demon here try to distract people"
It is just a particle accelerator! There is also one in Hamburg, Germany. I did a school internship in 10th grade at the physics department of a university in Germany, and they worked on an experiment at the particle accelerator in Hamburg. It is just nerdy (most people would say: boring) science stuff. I thought I knew all conspiracy theories, also the religious inspired. And with some of them I could at least understand where it comes from. But when I heard the first time this stuff about CERN I thought: "Really? A particle accelerator now is something satanic???" That is so weird.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Who says that "we go created from Big Bang"? The analogy with the tornado is wrong, because there are no physical laws and forces that would do it. The Big Bang theory just says, that the universe had a beginning, so where time and space started (it was invented by a Christian priest BTW and critisized back then by some scientists who thought it was too religious, so like somebody was looking for a theory that is compatible with their belief in a creator). So the entire universe was cramped in an unlimited small singularity as pure energy (we don't know what was before or who made that in the first place; that is not part of the theory). And then it expands and from that energy the leptones and quarks were built. And then those formed the protons and neutrons. And that formed the first atoms. and later the connect to bigger molecules. We all can observe that, it is just particle physics (what they do in the particle collider) and chemistry. And because of gravity the atoms come together, and so balls are formed, getting bigger an bigger. When that happens with hydrogen, the pressure will finally so big that it becomes a star. And other elements form rocklike bodys, that become moon and planets. And carbon has the chemical features to form long and complex molecules, so you go carbon compunds. And they finally became the first amino acids, and finally the first living cell.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The very fact that this video compares a costly race car, the Taycan Turbo S, "
It is not a race car, it is a sports car. And it has four doors and decenst room in the back (whcih "race car" has that) and it starts at already 105,000 € (The Turbo S costs 185,000 €; option prices for German cars are often insane)
" with a family-man car which was not even built for racing"
But for acceleration
"Tesla Model S, where quick acceleration is just a by product that most family men don’t even use/want, "
Sorry, but that is bullshit! Why should anybody buy the Perfomance version instead of the Long Range version, who don't even want or use it? Tesla always focused on low 0-60s times. Tesla drivers like show off and made funny reaction videos because of the accerelration. Tesla always brought the software updates with "insane mode", "ludicrous mode", now "cheetah stance" and they are all about acceleration. There were so many drag races with the Tesla. All the perfomance of Tesla is optimzied for exactly that discipline.
"Add to that 400 miles range, vs 190 something for Taycan. "
Where do you have these numbers from? Or do you really take the EPA numbers, although everybody should know meanwhile, that in reality the Taycan is not much worse than the Tesla, especially at higher speeds (and actually only there it is important, who cares about city range)? Here an actual real life test of the Model S Perfomance and the Taycan 4S on german autobahn at 75 mph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK0oC83y4L8&t=1312s
Tesla: 263 miles
Porsche: 233 miles
"Basically all the energy they used in accelerating and beating Tesla’s bench mark, just to win by a marginal difference."
No, they don't put all the engery in beating Tesla in such a drag race. Actually Drag racing are a very American thing, here in Germany nobody really cares, and cars like the Dodge Demon are completly weird and pointless to us. However, yes, the Porsche wants to be a real Porsche, so a good sports car. That is much more then a drag race. Everybody who drives Taycan is excited about it, also "Tesla-Fans" like Ben Sullivan said, that it is the best driving electric car (or car in General) out there. It feels great, is fun, and a real Porsche.
2
-
2
-
@Faith5883 "We probably do know the distance between two cities."
So you agree that the official distance, that I measure on a globe, are correct. Which means, that earth is a sphere. Period. It is that simple.
"The flight patterns have been debunked by pilots that know the earth is flat. So I suggest you ask one those pilots. I am not one. "
Bullshit. And why only pilots? How about logistic companies? Private travellers? The earth is at it is , open to everybody, has been travelled by anybody. The idea that there is some elite group that has other information is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. Because it cannot be hidden.
"Does water find it's own level?"
No, not without forces. Have you ever seen water in weightlessness, so in a zero-G plane? It forms a sphere. Gravity is the reason why it is parallel to the ground.
"and the water would fly off a spinning earth.."
Have you ever calculated the centrifugal force of the earth? Probably not, isntead you just blindly believe anything that you see in Flat earth videos. You don't do research, you don't make calculations, you don't think for yourself. You learn how to calculatue centrifugal forces in middle school. Or just look it up online. I have done that. It is extremly low. At the equator a 100 kg Object just becomes about 300 g "lighter" because of the rotation of the earth (I would not use the word "spinning"; because one rotation within 24 hours is very slow). Or another comparison: The centrifugal force at the equator is so low, as you would drive with 100 km/h in a car on a circular race track that hass an diameter of 44 km.
"that is also spinning around the sun, jetting through space at unimaginable speeds. "
Yes, so? You know that we cannot feel speed, and that we cannot even measure absolute speed?
"e have NO photos at all of the "globe" none."
You just blidnly believe all the lies in Flat earth videos, e.g. that there are no photos. Of course there are. Thousands. And we get more all the time, because e.g. the japanese weather satellite Himawari 8 sends a photo of the earth every ten minutes. But you just believe the lie, that all photos are fake, without any evidence.
"So there is no proof at all that it is a ball except to take the word of the liars at NASA."
Bullshit. People know the earth is a sphere since more than 2000 years. We had accurate globes (so that looks more or less like modern ones) in our living rooms, already decades before NASA has shown us the first photo of the earth from space. How do you come to the absurd idea, that we need to see earth from high above, to kno how it looks like? Do you need to see a city from high above, if you want to create a city map? No. So why do you think, that you need to see the earth from high above, when you want to create a world map?
Watch a sunset at the beach. What you see there only works on a globe. But you are so indoctrinated by Flat Earth videos, that you really would describe it as "The sun moves away, and finally it is so far away that we cannot see it anymore". Although that is completly against your own senses. But you don't trust them, instead you believe in Youtube videos.
"I am sure you are a really nice person and I am sorry to sound... not so nice,"
I just wanted to write exactly the same :-)
"not so nice, but I have researched this now since 2014... in 2015 I had to concede to the earth not being a ball. "
Watching youtube videos is not "research". The problem is, that you guys always say "Research flat earth" - but I recommend you to research globe earth. And haven't you noticed, that all flat earthers started in that time? You just follow a trend!
Imagine somebody would have just tell you, that earth is not a sphere, and that you should just think about it and do research. But there were no Flat earth videos and websites. Be honest: Which would be your arguments in that case? Which ideas would come actually from yourself, so by your own research and thinking? Can you tell me at least one argument, that I don't find in Eric Dubays "200 proofs"? Or the other way around: Is there at least one thing in his "proofs", where you say, that he is completly wrong there, or that he is lying in that point? I just don't find original flat earthers with own ideas and with actual critical thinking. I always just hear "Water always find its level... there is no gravity, but only density and buoyancy... there are no real photos of the earth from space... bubbles in space... the Antarctic treaty prevents people from going to Antarctica.... Sunset/Polaris/... is all exlaines by perspective....". Flat earthers just parrot what they see in youtube videos, they don't question it, the don't validate it, they don't calculate things,...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@loyal6604
" that’s what I thought but space is described a weightless void "
No, it is not. We all live in space. You are weightless when no other force than gravity affects you, so in free fall. There is not even a real definition where space begins, the atmospher becomes thinner fluently.
" where material collects forming planets all due to gravity. "
Yes. So?
"Airless voids exist on earth but we don’t call it outer space."
No, we don't. We just say that the conditions there are similar/the same, so "no air".
"But your right space has nothing to do with gravity because it is something that can’t be totally identified or recognized."
Have you even ever looked into the formula for gravity? In Newton's model gravity is described as a force between everything that has a mass. And the force depends on the masses of the objects and the distance between them. The formula is
(gravitational Constant)*(mass of object 1)*(mass of object 2)/(distance between the center of the objects)^2
With that formula you can calculate, that down here on earth's surface an object with a mass of 1kg is pulled to the ground with a force of about 9.8N. And that is exactly what we also measure. It is a fact. You can feel that an object with the mass of 1kg is pulled to the ground with 9.8N. Can we agree that when you want to lift a 10 kg object you need twice the force than liftig a 5kg object? And with that formula you can calculate how strong the pull is at an altitude of 100 km or 1000 km or 1000000 km away from earth.
Together with his three laws of motion (1. Every objects keeps its state of motion unless it is affected by a force; 2. force = mass * acceleration; 3. for every action there is a equal and opposite action) Newton discovered the foundation for all our science and technological progress. Mechanical engineers uses them. To build cars, airplanes, helicopters, roller coasters, rockets,... It describes why the objects here in the video fall, how they fall, at what rate they fall, how hard the impact will be etc. The special discovery of Newton was not that he saw and Apple falling and thought "gravity!". But more like: Why doesn't the moon fall down? Or does it? So he discovered that both the fall of an Apple and the orbit of the moon around the earth follow the same laws. The trajectory of a satellite follow the same rules as the trajectory of a stone that you throw. You calculate it by the same way. It all adds up. Newton's model is a full theory, that explains nearly all the motions that we see around us, down here, in space... It works (well, Einstein discovered that it doesn't work anymore for extreme high speed and masses, but we still can perfectly work with Newton's model inside its boundaries).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Unlike you, I have done my research. In the FAQ on the CERN Website:
Why does CERN have a statue of Shiva?
The Shiva statue was a gift from India to celebrate its association with CERN, which started in the 1960’s and remains strong today. In the Hindu religion, Lord Shiva practiced Nataraj dance which symbolises Shakti, or life force. This deity was chosen by the Indian government because of a metaphor that was drawn between the cosmic dance of the Nataraj and the modern study of the ‘cosmic dance’ of subatomic particles. India is one of CERN’s associate member states. CERN is a multicultural organisation that welcomes scientists from more than 100 countries and 680 institutions. The Shiva statue is only one of the many statues and art pieces at CERN.
What are the shapes in the CERN logo?
The shapes in CERN’s current logo represent particle accelerators. The logo in this form dates back to 1968, when a decision was made to change the CERN logo from the original one, seen here. Some 114 new designs were proposed, many of which used CERN’s experiments as inspiration. The final design used the original lettering, surrounded by a schematic of a synchrotron, beam lines and particle tracks. Today’s logo is a simplified version of this.
I saw a video of a strange ritual at CERN, is it real?
No, this video from summer 2016 was a work of fiction showing a contrived scene. CERN does not condone this kind of action, which breaches CERN’s professional guidelines. Those involved were identified and apropriate measures taken.
It is just a particle collider. There is also one in Hamburg, Germany (DESY). More than 20 years ago I made my high school internship at the physics department of a university. And they also worked on an experiment at DESY. My internship supervisor made his PhD there. It is just nerdy theoretical science stuff, that most people would find boring. And it is all public funded, like CERN. Just go there, as a visitor, but you can also work there, students make their PhD there... I was familiar with many conspiracy theories but the first time I heard that some people actually claimed these weird things about CERN I thought "What? Really? How come people to such stupid ideas?"
2
-
@jimhrn8522
" Shiva is not a little g god . ( There is only one god in three persons ) Shiva is a demon and they are real and legion you may need some alternative study material to understand what you/ they ? Are playing with "
So are you an expert in Indian culture and religion? Actually it doesn't matter what Shiva could be. The point is: It is a gift by the Indian government. Do you have prove that it is not?
Imagine I get new neighbors, nice people, I invent them for diner to welcome them. They are from India and as a gift they bring a Shiva statue. I say "Oh, thank you" and I put in in the shelf in my living room. Now you come to visit me and see the Shiva Statue. Would you also say that I am an evil person who probably does some demonic stuff in my house - just because I have something in my home that my neighbors gifted me with good intentions?
BTW I am a guy not a lady 🙂 And I don't want to insult you, but unfortunately the people who come with conspiracy theories are the one who are disrespectful. Imagine I would spread on the internet, that you make satanic rituals in your basement and rape children there. And so other people think that you are evil and evil things happens at your home. Would you like that? No. I would be a horrible person if I would do that. We call that slander. And I don't think Jesus would like it if I spread lies about other people, right?
And here we have research facility, that exist for decades, now runs the biggest particle collider in the world. Good and smart people work there, they find out fascinating stuff about how our creation works. And now you claim, that they secretly do evil things. Sorry, but that is not nice of you. That is slander. You spreading lies about people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"However, on a trip to Mars you are not in freefall, you're being propelled in a specific direction and so there's an opposing force on your body which is equivalent to gravity."
It is correct, that if you are in a vehicle that is propelled all the time, that you would have an force. If your acceleration is abut 9.8 m/s^2 then it would even be like on earth.
But why do you think that we would have that on a trip to Mars? Actually we don't have the technology for that. It is complete Science Fiction to have a spacecraft where wer can just run any kind of engine all the time.
We only can "shoot" spacercafts into space - and then they are just drifting, so "falling". A rocket that brings astronauts to the ISS has to reach about 28000 km/h. At that speed things settle inot orbit around the earth, without falling down. So we have huge rockets, that are more or less only giant fuel tanks. After about 10 minutes the rocket has reached that speed - and has spent all its fuel! If you want to leave orbit you need about 40000 km/h. So when we send something to Mars, we accelerate to 40000 km/h, so we shoot it away from earth. And then it moves 40000 km/h to Mars, without any propulsion. And the astronauts in it are weightless exactly like on the ISS. Because there is no acceleration, and so no other force.
" What percentage of Earth's gravity it is depends on your velocity, but as long as you're moving it's never gonna be zero."
Wrong, it doesn't depend on your velocity, but on your acceleration. There is only a force when you change your speed, not when you move with constant speed. As explained, the ISS also moves with 28000 km/h around the earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@goodlight8089
Pluto was Planet 9 from 1930 to 2006. In 1846 Neptune was Planet 13. Then Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno and Astrea were "kicked out" and downgraded to "asteroids". Meanwhile Ceres counts not as an asteroid anymore, but as a dwarf planet like Pluto.
So if Pluto stays a planet in your heart and you don't accept its downgrade in 2006, then I say: Ceres will always be a planet in my heart and I will not accept its downgrade to asteroid in 1850.
But if you count Pluto as planet, then they are not looking for planet ten. Because you should count Eris then counts as Planet (about the same size as Pluto, but more mass) then. And also Makemake and Haumea. You know, the other objects in the Kuiper Belt, whose discovery was one of the reason that Pluto is not a planet anymore, because they all would be planets then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Singmen64 I really appreciate, that you are actually interested in answers (usually I write something like that and get no answer or just "Sheep, you work for the government" or something like that...)
So Switzerland is famous for its tunnels, and the Gotthard base tunnel is the longest railway tunnel in the world, so the opening is a big deal. And so they make a big opening, two days of party with many visitors etc. And as the tunnel is important also for economy, for transport stuff between North and South Europe, leaders from Germany, France and Italy were invited. And it is not unusual that you make a ceremony, like you also see for the opening for the olympic games for example. And to hire an artist for that. An in this case it was Volker Hesse, a German theater producer.
The performance is a bout the myth of the Alps, its wild nature, and how humans finally overcame them over the centuries. By building roads and tunnels. The Goat is not Satan - instead this type of goat (Capra ibex) is a typical animal in the Alps, a symbol for the region. You also find it on some regional flags and heraldry in Switzerland. And some creatures also are from Swiss folklore and you see them on traditional parades.
However, I don't want to say it is "complete normal", but ist is just weird in a way that modern theater is. So that it is often pretentious and the director have to explain "This and that represents this and that",... When you see some modern interpretation of a Shakespear piece, which is set in modern days, very abstract, people are naked or wear weird stuff... or perfomance art, where most people watch and think "Well, OK, ..." Somebody of a right wing swiss party also made a statement, that critcsized the perfomance, it doesn't represents Switzerland etc. And I guess many of the official guests thought "What is that???" , but then still smiled :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Why don't they also show the value of the extracted air in that object!"
What do you mean with "value", so the remaining air pressure, if it is not a perfect vacuum? Why does it matter? With less air, the drag becomes weaker and weaker, so the inflence on the falling objects weaker and weaker and finally so weak that you don't notice any difference between the feather and the ball in this certain experiment.
" It is impossible to the globe with such protection is in a vacuum-empty space and does not have any solid barrier that would separate two different values of the gas fluid! "
The atmosphere becomes thinner fluently, so you cannot even say where "space" begins. Why do people have this weird idea that there is "atmosphere" on the one side and then "space" on the other side. You literally can already feel the pressure differences in your ears when you go with the fast and high elevator or quickly drive up and down a mountain. And you can measure it with simple tools. You really think that "space is vacuum" is something that scientists just claim and you have to believe? What a stupid idea!
So here the air pressure values for some altitudes:
sea level: 1013.25 hPa
at 1000 m: 891 hPa
at 8848 m (height of Mount Everest): 325 hPa
at 13 km (airliners flight altitude): 191 hPa
at about 35 km: 10 hPa
at 50 km: 165 Pa
at 100 km (most used definition for the beginning of space, but of course arbitrary): 0.3 Pa
average between earth and moon: about 0.00000001 Pa
average beyon that: about 0.00000000000001 Pa
You have a diferent value of air prssure with every inch that you go higher! So where is the solid barrier between the 1013 hPa on the ground and only half of it on a mountain? The is none! Obviously it is not necessary. So why do you think that it has to be higher because there is even less air pressure? and where even do you expect that barrier, so at what altitude and why?
"If the footage was of real speed, the fall would be much faster than the slow motion footage. "
The ball falls at about the same time as in non-vacuum. The point is to show, that the feather falls in the same rate in the vacuum.
" If the air was drawn below 0 bar at -20 mb"
Below 0 bar? How an you have negative air pressure? 0 bar is a perfect vacuum.
"Physics is physics"
Yes, and you have absolutly no idea about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"always has been always will be."
Wrong. It was not always the 9th planet. In 1846 Neptune was discovered - as the 13 th planet. The other were Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, stars emit lights, Planets don't. Imagine it is completely dark, what do you see: A car that is only 10 meters away that has its headlights off? Or a car that is 100 meters away, but has it headlights on? You can see starswithyour naked eye although they are so trillion of kilometers away - because they are shining.
Less obvious is the finding of planets. Yes, we actually have found planets in other solar systems, although they are much further away than Planet 9 would be. But we find it with indirect methods. Imagine it is totally dark and two black birds are flying through thee air, one is 5 meters away, the other is 50 meter away. But the one that is 50 m away flies in front of the moon. Which one would you see? the 50 meter one! Because you can see its sillouette in front of the moon. And in a similar way we see planets that passes their star. Not really the silloutte, that is too far away, but when we observed some stars for a while then we noticed, that they periodically become darker for a short time. That obviously means, that a planet orbits that stars and sometimes get between us and the star.
And we can even notice if the planet has an atmosphere or what elements are in theatmosphere, because its not only that the planet just blocks the light of thee star, so that there is less light, but we see that the spectrum changes. That means that the atmosphere blocks certain frequences ("colors") of the light.
2
-
2
-
" look at the sun at dawn "
If I look at the sun at dawn at the sea, I clearly see that the earth must be a sphere. Because the entire sun in its full size vansihed behind the horizon. And I cannot fetch it back with a telescope. The only other explanation of this observation would be, that the earth is a flat disc and the edge is at the horizon, but that is obviusly not the case. And I also see a sun, that is always a full circle. That doesn't match with the model, that it makes a spotlight on the earth.
"does it look like Millions of Miles away? "
How could you decide in that moment, if it is close and small or far away and big?
"search videos on youtube about sun behind clouds"
I thing you mean "clouds behind the sun" and videos where the sun just outshines the clouds before it. But besides that, how does it fit to your model? The highest clouds are at 18km. So you really want to say, that the sun is closer than 18 km?
"sun and moon appears at the same time. "
And where is the problem with that?
"ou're the pea brain coz everything NASA throws shit at you you swallow it withouth question,"
You are the one who swallow every "NASA is lying!...Earth is flat!" video on youtube without questions and without doing your own research.
And it is ridiculous to even talk about NASA, because they are not the reason, that we know how the planet, on that we live on, looks like. It is much simpler: We know how the earth looks like, because we have travelled it. Since centuries. Maps became better and better. We had accurate globes decades befre NASA shown us the "blue marble" picture. So you claim, that we cannot find out the actual distances between two cities. And you think that the elite prevents us from finding that out.
According to the globe, the distance between Sydney and Santiago de Chile is about 11,300km, the distance between Sydney and Los Angeles is 12,000 km. You claim that these figures are wrong. Although the flight times matches with these distances. Although thousands of travellers, airlines, logistic companies,... travel across the pacific ocean all the time, and none of the found out that it is wrong. Although on the only maps that you flat earthers show, the distance Sydney-Santiago is far bigger than Sydney-Los Angeles, which doesn't match with the flight time, and all the people who travel on the routes would notice it.
2
-
"Let’s all keep in mind that we’re talking tomato’s and apples here. "
We have two electric cars with four doors, similar size, two motors, simular power... If this is tomatos and apples, what about the other drag races here on the channel (the last ones are exotic supercar vs. sports sedan, SUV vs sportscar etc)?
" The model S isn’t made to take to the track."
But it is made for the drag strip. Tesla always focused on the 0-60 time. They brag with it. They offer a perfomance version (that is used here). They provided always new updates (insane mode, ludicrous mode, ludicrous plus, cheetah stance) that are all about acceleration. They hammered into peoples minds that 0-60 is everything when it comes to perfomance. Tesla driveres made funny reaction videos of people in launching Teslas. And now they bring the Plaid version, which only reason for existence is to be the fastest production car in the world.
But when the Model S now finally loses a drag race for the first time, the comment section is full of "You cannot compare them... it is a family car vs a sportscar... the idea behind them is different..." . That is ridiculous.
"From what I’ve heard, it’s an overpriced lemon "
From what I've heard, the Taycan is a great car, and every review is very positive, also from Tesla owners. And at the moment it is Porsches best-selling car.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Haraka111
"A dwarf planet is still a planet that's my point.."
I heard that often, it is interesting. Maybe it has to do with the language, but I am German, so here the category is called "Zwergplanet". And we have many names for example in the animal world where such a connected word doesn't mean, that it is an actual part of the one word. And there are some in English, too: A "guinea pig" is not a pig. A "sea leopard" (well, maybe you know it as "leopard seal", but in german it is just "Seeleopard") is not a leopard. So to me, a "dwarf planet" can be its own category. It doesn't have to be a subcategory of "planet".
"I would say a space object with a regular orbit around a star."
That is the case for thousands of objects :-)
"usually circular"
Well, Okay, then dwarf planets would also count as planets to you. That is fine. The only difference between "planet" and "dwarf planet" is, that the dwarf planet has not clean its orbit from other objects.
"my point is Pluto is a dwarf planet or little planet.. that means it's still a planet.."
As explained above, it is interesting that it seems to be a language thing. As we write things together (the German language is famous for that, so you can create very long words, that actually exist), it is even easier to take "dwarf planet" as its own thing, because we call it "Zwergplanet" and not "Zwerg Planet". :-)
Oh, and don't get me wrong, I don't want to say that these definitions for planet and dwarf planet, that the IAU made in 2006 are good or that I agree. They are also contoversial among scientists.
One reason for the definition was, that more and more objects in the Kuiper belt was found, and the question was: Should they all count as planets? So it was the same situation as in 1850, when more and more objects were found in the asteroid belt. So they said: If not all new found round objects in the Kuiper Belt should count as planets, there hass to be a distinctions. And Pluto has more in common with the Kuiper Belt objects than with the planets. On the other hand: It would also make sense to make a distinction between the small inner solid planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and the big gas planets (Jupiter, Saturn, uranus, Neptune), because they are very different. But we still put them in the same category.
However, we don't need a big discussion here :-) I don't really care, at the end it is just about names and artificial categories. It doesn't change anything about the objects.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@derekhodgson371
"According to scientist in a vacuum the objects increase speed to almost light speed"
Well, according to Newton's model an object reaches any speed as long as a force is acting on it long enough. Einstein's model says something else, there you will never reach light sped, because you mass increases with the speed and nothing can reach light speed.
"that's why I would like to see in a bigger vacuum "
But how big should that be? Have you even calculated that? So let's ignore relativity here and work with Newton's model, so simply calculate how long an object has to fall with 9.8 m/s^2 until it reaches light speed (300,000 km/s). It is more than 4 trillion km! But gravity becomes weaker with the distance. So you have 9.8 km/s^2 only down, further away from earth it is weaker.
"i don't trust all the space theories any more,"
What "space theories"? There are certain "space theories", because there is nothing special about space. We live in space. But we have atmosphere down here, which is special and make things more complicated. But the atmosphere gets thinner qucikly, you easily experience and measure it. On the top of an 5400 meter high mountain you only have half of the air. At the altitude of regular airliners less than 20%. And when you go higher finally no air at all. At 22 miles you only 1% of air pressure left.
" seen to many videos where you catch is cgi or wires or water,"
Please, use your brain and common sense and do resarch. Don't be so gullible and blindly believe nonsense "NASA is lying" videos on youtube.
"nothing floats in a vacuum"
Who claims that things floats because they are in a vacuum?
".also with my 700USD camera I have amazing pictures and when I zoom to a mountain i see that the moon can not be 200.000 miles away. "
Why should it not be possible? So thousands of people all over the world observed the sky and the moon for centuries. The get better tools, better telescopes, better methods, better calculatations,... and we finally came to a distance of about 384,000 km. That is just science. It is a ridiculous idea that makes no sense that somebody (who even? astronomy is a very democatric science; many astronomic discoveries were made by amateurs) lies about it. Satellites are regular business, run by normal companies, that offere services to normal custormers. There are meanwhile many start up rocket companies. feel free to found such a company or work there.
I just don't get it, we 2023, you use so much advanced technology in your everyday life. Why do people think that "space" is something special, and that we don't know the truth? Doesn't make any sense.
2
-
I have seen this for the first time and totally agree. I often say: They are not Pro-Life, they are Pro-Birth, and then they give a fuck about the Life of the mother and the child. Of course we should not all "pro-Life"-People lump together, but especially from my German perspective it is so weird to see that often the same people, who yell "Murderer!!" to doctors or women that had an abortion, also yell "Socialism!!! Evil!!!" when it comes to public healthcare etc.
Abortion is not an easy ethical topic, and I guess nobody thinks that abortion is a cool and easy thing. I also would prefer when there were no abortions. But it is weird how these people don't realize that hate and radical prohibition doesn't help. Should't they have learned from the alcohol prohibition they had in the USA? Yes, alcohol abuse is a problem, but prohibition didn't help. I don't have the source, but I have heard that the number of abortions is lower in countries, where it is allowed.
In Germany we have:
- a good an affordable healthcare for everyone (as a normal employee, you need an insurance, it is demanded, the fee depends on your income, and 50% has to be paid by the employer), and it also covers your child
- six weeks before and eight weeks after birth, the mother doesn't have to work, is paid by the insurance and, has the guarantee to keep her job
- After that there is 12 months of "parent's money" that can be split between both parents. It is 67 % of your income. Your employer cannot dismiss you, so you go back to your job after that
- in many regions in Germany child daycare is for free or depends on your income, so that it is affordable
- schools and also universities are free
So how about provide a situation where women have less reasons for abortion? But no, that is all evil communism! Better force women to give birth! And then leave the mother and child on their own, because it their fault when they have finanincial troubles!
2
-
2
-
2
-
" I see these type of comparisons all over the internet/YouTube! "
And I see these "not fair comparison, the Tesla is a family sedan, Taycan a sports car" comments all over the comment section here. And it is stupid. Have you seen the last other drag races here on the channel?
- Lamborghini Aventador vs Audi RS7 (exoctic supercar vs (sports/luxury/tell me!)-sedan)
- Mercedes-AMG G63 vs Mercedes-AMG A45 (offroad vehicle vs compact hatchback)
- Audi R8 vs Audi RS Q8 (sportscar vs SUV)
And you really think that a "sports sedan" should not be compared with a "luxury sedan"? Although those car are really similar and the definitions are completly vague?
And more important: This is not a track race, it is a drag race! On a track I maybe could understand a bit more your problem, but not on a drag strip. You don't need a sports car to be good, you just need power. Do you think that a Mercedes E-class, BMW 5 series or Audi A6 are luxury sedans? Are the station wagon versions of it even "Family wagons"? Well, there are famous high perfomance version of them (BMW M5, Merceds-AMG E63, Audi RS6). And they have more power than many sportscars. And so they are faster in drag races, for example here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhKyb6hXzb0
Do you really think it is a problem that a Luxury Sedan (there is also a station wagon version, that is probably not much slower) beats a sportscar - and not just a random sportscar but the Porsche 911, which is for many people the best sports car in the world? No! Why should it? The Mercedes has 611 HP, the Porsche only 450 HP. Of course the Mercedes is quicker, do you think that Porsche can do magic and overcome physics, just because their vehicle is classified as a "sports car"?
Next year Tesla will bring the Plaid Version of the Model S, with three motors, 1100 HP, an estimated 0-60 times of less than 2 seconds, and a quarter mile time of less than 9 seconds. When that car wins a drag race against a hypercar, you still would say "And it is not even a sportscar, but a luxury sedan"?
A low quarter mile time doesn't say much about the abilites of a car, so if it is really a sports car. But drag races are the thing that Tesla and the Tesla fans always focus on! Since Tesla, only 0-60 seem to matter as an aspect for "perfomance". It is Tesla and the Tesla fans who make funny "reaction" videos of people who experiences the acceleration of a Tesla the first time. It is Tesla who increased the 0-60 perfomance over the years, with all these "insane", "ludicrous" and now "cheetah updates". It was always about the acceleration! The Tesla is optimized for the drag race, they did everything so that it is good in 0-60 or drag race! But now when it loses people say "Well, it is a family sedan/luxury sedan, not a sports car..." Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.
"Vídeos that compare a luxury sedan with a sport sedan."
Oh, a luxury sedan? Others here say it is a family sedan. Now what is its? And does it even matter? And what is luxury, how is the Taycan less luxurious?
"Tesla was made for luxury"
Really? People say that the interior noise is quite high, the quality not that high,... so not really "luxury". It is just a big electric car.
" and a by product of their superior technological advancements they happen to have a fast luxury sedan."
And because of the buy product they offer the perfomance version (although the normal version is fast enough)?
"Take the Tesla on a road trip with the Tycan and see how they fair in that respects!"
Then the Tesla has a longer range. And Taycan fans will say "That is an unfair comparison, the Taycan is not made road trips, but for the track?" So what is even a fair comparison? You would only compare cars that are exactly the same?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So you have been been Mars or how do you know about the details of atmosphere of Mars? It is so funny and stupid: The same people who tells you what the atmosphere of Mars is like, also built this helicopter, made for the thin atmosphere of Mars.
Why don't you just actually debunk it? So take the data they are given to you about the atmosphere of Mars, and the data you have about the helicopter and calculate if it works? Or make a simulation. Oh, you can't, because you are not an engineer? Then just shut up. It is so weird, I wonder how you even think this hoax and conspiracy should work. The JPL in Pasadena is well connected to the Caltech. So probably even engineering students from the the Caltech work on things like this.
It is the same with the Van Allen Belt: I always read "it is not possible to pass the Van Allen Belt" as an "argument" by people who don't believe in the moon landings. That just makes NO SENSE! Because these people have not been there to measure the radiation there. Instead, the same people, who tells them that there is a radiation belt in the first place, also tells, that it is possible to pass it. So how can you say that we cannot pass the Van Allen Belt? It is ridiculous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
I am suprised he doesn't mention, that the GTC4Lusso not only have four wheel driving, but also four wheel steering.
And especially the part at 15:05 sounds like that the FF was the first Ferrari with four seats, so a complete new and untraditional Ferrari. Yes, the hatchback was new. But actually the FF ist just the successor of the 612. Wich is the successor of the 456. And years before that, there were other 4 seaters. So next to the small V8-line (488, 458, F430, 360, F355,...) and the big powerfull V12-2seaters (812, F12, 599, 575, 550, Testarossa,...) there was "always" a line of Four-Seat-Gran Turismos of Ferrari, that are more comfortable and practical than the other models. But I have to admit, that with the FF they improved the suitability for daily use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gerne :-) Übrigens zeigt sich bei dem Thema dass es sinnvoll ist, sich mal auf SI-Einheiten zu einigen. Viele denken ja immer noch bei Autos in PS, obwohl man eigentlich kW angeben soll/muss. Dieses Audi Concept hat 320kW. Also schluckt er auch bei Vollgas 320kW (sogar etwas mehr, da auch ein Elektromotor keine 100% Wirkungsgrad hat. Also 320.000 Watt! Soviel Strom kann der bei Vollgas aus dem Akku ziehen! Ein großer Computermonitor wie gesagt nur 60 Watt. Meine Nachttischlampe nur 4 Watt. Ein Wasserkocher 2000 Watt. Die extremsten möglichen Stromverbraucher in einem Normalen Haushalt ist ein Durchlauferhitzer mit 24kW. Und da kann es sein, dass man beim Stromversorger nachfragen muss, ob die Leitung zum Haus überhaupt darauf ausgelegt ist und das packt.
Und es zeigt auch, dass der von manchen genannte Vorschlag, dass man doch Solarzellen aufs Dach packen könnte, nicht so viel bringt. Selbst die allerbesten Solarpanels erzeugen höchstens 200 Watt Peak pro Quadratmeter. Und das eben auch nur bei definierten, ziemlichen guten Bedinungen (klarer Himmel, Sonne prallt direkt drauf, am Besten senkrecht).
Oder anderer Größenvergleich: Der Akku selbst in einem größeren Smartphone hat eine Kapazität von rund 10Wh. Der Akku in diesem Audi hat eine Kapazität von 95000Wh.
1
-
NoONEcares X, ich glaube da liegt ein Missverständnis vor. Wenn ich meinen Beitrag noch mal lese, kann ich aber nachvollziehen kann, dass ich mich da alles andere als eindeutig ausgedrückt habe :-) Es geht ja die ganze Zeit ums Auto. Und mit "Solarzellen aufs Dach" war dann gemeint: "Solarzellen aufs Autodach". Ich hätte das eher hinter meinen ersten Beitrag schreiben sollen, und nicht hinter die Auflistung an Maximalverbräuchen, dann wäre das klarer gewesen. Bzw. weiter vorrechnen sollen, wie viele kWh dann in der Zeit, wo das auto draußen steht, wohl maximal erzeugt werden würden.
Die Frage "Warum lässt man nicht die Touchschreens weg, das würde die Reichweite erhöhen?" ist ähnlich zu "warum machen die Hersteller nicht einfach Solarzellen auf das Dach der Elektroautos?" Beide fragen zeigen, dass man sich der Größenordnungen (wie viel Strom ein Display verbraucht, wie viel ein Elektroauto zum fahren verbraucht, wie viel Solarzellen erzeugen) nicht bewusst ist. Daher habe ich dann für Hype_Oansen das mal aufgelistet und vorgerechnet, damit eher mehr ein Gefühl für die Größenordnungen bekommt.
Wobei man natürlich sagen muss, dass Solarzellen auf dem Autodach jetzt schon eher auf die Reichweite bemerkbarer Einfluss hätten, als das Weglassen von Displays im Innenraum. Daher schrieb ich auch "bringen nicht so viel" anstatt "bringt gar nichts". Es gibt da so ein Crowdfunding-Projekt:
https://www.sonomotors.com/de/sion/
Wenn man sich eben nicht so damit auskennt, denkt man sich bei den Solarzellen vielleicht "Cool, warum haben das nicht schon andere gemacht". Aber mit etwas Wissen ist man dann eher skeptisch bei der Sache. Schon die PV-Zellen auf den Seiten. Da dauert das aber lange, bis die ihre Herstellungsenergie wieder eingespielt haben... Die Rechnen das zwar vor, haben auch Tests gemacht und wollen auch einen ehrlichen Wert angeben, aber die 30 zuätzlichen Kilometer erscheinen mir dennoch sehr optimistisch. Die Idee, das Auto beuwsst bidirektional auszulegen und den Strom z.B. beim Campen zu nutzen finde ich nett, aber gerade dann würde man sich eher ausklappbare PV-Zellen wünschen. Die vorhandenen 7,5m² kann man sonst ja nur suboptimal nutzen (bzw. wird man ja nie 7,5m² überhaupt nutzen, weil eine Seite immer im Schatten stehen wird)
1
-
"500km NEFZ? 632km NEFZ kann Tesla mit dem Model S 100D jetzt März 2017 schon." Mal sehen, wie die Realreichweiten sind, diese 500km-Angabe ist ein sehr grober Wert und kann alles mögliche bedeutet. Das Ding soll einen 95kWh-Akku bekommen, Stirnfläche ist beim Sportback und wohl auch beim normalen e-tron Quattro niedriger als beim Model X, ich denke mal der Verbrauch wird niedriger als beim X sein. Die Anmerkung von Ed # ix ("weiter als Tesla") ist aber natürlich dennoch fraglich. Zumal ich es immer albern finde, dass Tesla bei der Reichweiten Diskussion oft so genannt wird, als wenn die nur ein Auto haben. Ja, das Model S100D ist wohl das Serien-Elektroauto mit der höchsten Reichweite am Markt. Und die beiden Audis, die kommen werden, werden auch keine größere Reichweite haben. Aber es gibt auch noch das Model X, dass mehr verbraucht, daher bei gleichem Akku nicht so weit kommt. Es gibt auch Model X und Model S mit kleinerem Akku. Und das Model 3 in der kleinsten Ausführung wird nochmals eine geringere Reichweite haben. Letztlich spielt es keine Rolle (weder für Tesla, noch für einen anderen Hersteller), das Elektroauto mit der höchsten Reichweite im Angebot zu haben. Höchstens fürs Image. Relevant ist, was man fürs Geld bekommt, und was das für ein Auto ist (es ist gewissermaßen "unfair" einen SUV mit einer flacheren, leicheren Limousine zu vergleichen). Wenn der Audi-Elektro-SUV s weit kommt wie das Tesla Model X 90D, aber deutlich billiger ist, dann ist er durchaus eine gute Alternative. Und dann ist es nicht so wichtig, dass es den X auch mit 100er Akku und größeren Reichweite für noch mehr Geld gibt.
"Und du kannst aber sicher sein, dass Tesla bis dorthin NICHT in der Pendeluhr schlafen wird." Elon Musik hat im Februar in einem Tweet mal gesagt "No plans to take X, S (or 3) above 100 kWh." Es ist naives Tesla-Fanboy-Denken, wenn man meint, dass Tesla einen kaum einholbaren Vorsprung bei den Reichweiten hätte.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RS would not fit, maybe there will be an RS version later. They just use the exact same naming scheme that they use for the other cars. So when you know how Porsche calles the trim levels of their cars, then you know what you get. Because also there the name "turbo" doesn't tell you anything about the technology. Well, yes, before the Taycan the "turbos" at least have a turbocharger. But the point is: The non-turbo versions have one, too! At the moment you can choose between a Taycan 4S, a Taycan turbo and a Taycan turbo S. So probably in the Future there will be a even a cheaper version ("Taycan 4") or maybe even an RWD version ("Taycan", but I think that is unlikely). What do you think is the different between a Panamera 4S and a Panamera Turbo? The turbo has more power. That's it. The name doesn't tell you which technology was used to get more power. Actually the 4S has a V6 and the Turbo has a V8 - but both are turbocharged. And here it is the same. And for example the "turbo S" version is always the top model of a Porsche (beside some special GT or R version, which are more race cars), that for example has ceramic brakes. So again, the name is not misleading - it is the opposite. You know what you get and you can categorize the different versions of the Taycan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it is an important information. I am only surprised that it seems new to so many people here , you should learn that in geography in school. And actually, when your visual thinking is not that bad, it is just logical, that it is not possible to map the surface of a sphere on a 2D-map without gaps or distortion. This all has nothing to do with time periods, technology, or accuracy.
And you have to care. Many flat earthers don't understand it. As an argument they use a case of a flight from Manila to Los Angeles, that made an emergency landing in Alaska. And they say, that on the "Globe Map" (they mean a Mercator projection) it would not make sense, while on the "flat earth map" (they mean a polar azimuthal equidistant projection) it makes sense. But actually Alaska is the closest land when you are in the middle of the ocean between Manila and L.A.
Also many "non-flat earthers" wonder, why airplanes seem to make a curve to the north, so e.g. that Los Angeles - London flies over Greenland. And then some say, that it is for security reasons, so that they don't want to fly to long over open water. But that is wrong. The direct connection from Los Angeles to London is actually over Greenland. On the Mercator projection you get the impression, that when to cities are on the same latitude, the shortest way would be along the latitude. But that is wrong (expect for the equator).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@irlcomplex
Disclaimer: I am German, so sorry if I use terms like "gear" , "speed", transmission", "shift"... not always in the correct way, I guess you still always know what I mean :-) and maybe it was a misconception from the beginning, because with "There are no gears in them" you maybe meant something else.
However, electric motors have maximum tourque from the beginning. So unlike ICE cars, electric cars don't NEED a gearbox with several speeds. But that doesn't mean, that you cannot build an electric car with several gears. It still can have advantages. Actually in the Formula E they use even five speed transmissions.
When it comes to street legal cars, the Rimac Concept one (relresed in 2013) also have two speeds on the one axis. You can stay in one gear all the time if you like. But you reach the maximum acceleration only in the one gear, and the maximum top speed only in the other gear. The Porsche Taycan also doesn't have one fixed transmission like most electric cars, instead at a certain speed it shifts into the second speed at a certain speed. Becuase of that it is faster and also more efficent and higher speeds. The Taycan was critizised for bad effiency in the EPA tests, but actually it is not that bad when you are faster than 60 mph. It is optimized for higher speeds. Here some articles about it:
https://www.wired.com/story/electric-car-two-speed-transmission-gearbox/
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a30379498/porsche-taycan-two-speed-transmission-explained/
Actually Tesla also originally thought about a two-speed-gearbox for the Model S. But then they cancelled it and prefere a simpler design with less stuff that could broke.
1
-
1
-
John Jordan: You are correct, we feel the change of motion, but:
1. The earth rotates with 1000mph continuosly. So no change in speed.
2. It rotates, so yes, there is a change of direction. So there is a centrifugal force, that we can measure and feel. But first, it is weak, just 3.3 N for a 100kg person. And second, it is just opposed to gravity. So it just reduces the earth's pull force. If you would live your whole life in an elevator, that accelerates continiosly with 0.1G up, then you wouldn't know, that you are in an accelerating elevator. Because then you think, that 1.1G is the normal earth's pull instead of 1G.
BTW, do you have anyting to say to my last comment about nthe NY-LA-flight and the maps?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelheinrich44 "es gibt genug Marktpotenzial für alle Hersteller. "
Richtig! Ich verstehe diese ganzen Sprüche nicht. "Tesla Killer" "Tesla kann einpacken", "VW kann einpacken", "Warum sollte man sich einen Taycan kaufen wenn das Model S billiger und schneller ist und mehr Reichweite hat"... Total unsinnig. Wenn ich mir einen Verbrenner in der Kompaktklasse kaufe habe ich derzeit die Wahl zwischen VW Golf, Audi A3, Seat Leon, BMW 1er, Mercedes A-Klasse, Ford Focus, Opel Astra, Toyota Corolla, Renault Megane, Peugeot 308, Kia Ceed, Hyundai i30 usw... Und alle finden irgendwie Käufer, weil jeder andere Prioritäten hat und es am Ende Geschmacksache ist. Aber bei Elektroautos tun viele auf einmal so, als wenn es da nur einen geben kann...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's assume that people in ancient times really had the same knowledge that we have today - or even more knowlegde,so that they knew about the suppsoed planet, that this video is about.
Then it still makes no sense that you try to fit numbers here. The definition of "planet" is more or less arbitrary. It is man made. And so it changes. There are thousands of objects that orbit the sun, and we picked eight of them to put them in a certain category. Why should the old Germans also take exactly those and put them in a special category? In 1850 we had 13 planets, but then scientists decided, that we don't call Ceres, Vesta, Juno, Pallas, Astrea "planets" anymore, so we had 8. Then Pluto was discovered in 1930 and we had 9 planets. In 2006 more "planets" were discovered in the Kuiper Belt that are similar to Pluto, but instead of calling them also planets, they decied to not call Pluto a planet anymore. So we have only 8 planets again.
The number of "planets" is not the result of knowledge, but of definitions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Bugatti hat eine Geschichte!" Du meinst, der Name Bugatti hat eine Geschichte. Das Unternehmen, welches den Chiron baut, existiert dagegen erst seit 1998, und ist einfach eine Volkswagen-Abteilung.
Aber letztlich stimme ich dir zu. Ich will Koenigsegg nicht schlecht machen, aber diese gajnzen "Haha, nimm das Bugatti!"-Kommentare sind albern. Die Autos sind einfach zu verschieden. Koenigsegg ist für mich noch eher eine Art Tuningbude, den RS gibt es auch nur 25 mal. Es gibt da draußen auch Leute, die 2000PS aus ihrem Nissan GT-R rauskitzeln, vielleicht sind die noch schneller in dieer Disziplin. Bugatti dagegen hat den Anspruch eher das ultimative Serienauto zu bauen, welches selbts im Alltag normal bewegt werden kann, Komfortabel ist usw.
1
-
1
-
" Bei den "Matchbox-Batterie-Autochen" hat man das doch mit den Ladesäulen auch gemacht. "
Ist auch unkomplizierter. Und man braucht weniger, weil viele Zuhause laden können.
"Und bei einem Antriebssystem, welches zu 100 Prozent klimaneutral ist, spielt der Wirkungsgrad nur noch eine untergeordnete Rolle. "
Bitte? Es wird ständig diskutiert, dass wir zu wenig Ökostrom erzeugen, und gefragt wo denn der ganze Ökostrom für die Elektroautos herkommen soll. Aber du meinst jetzt sogar dass es egal wäre, wenn die Elektroautos drei mal soviel Strom verbrauchen? Ja, Brennstoffzellenautos sind Elektroautos. Und Wasserstoff ist nur ein Transportmedium für Elektrische Energie.
Wir brauchen Wasserstoff für die Energiewende. In der Industrie braucht man teils Brennstoffe, da ist der einzige Weg zur CO2-Neutralität grüner Wasserstoff oder ähnliche E-Fuels. Ähnliches für Schiffe und Flugzeuge. Bei PKWs aber haben wir funktionierende Alternativen. Wasserstsoff ist viel zu wertvoll um ihn für PKWs zu nutzen.
Ach so, auch als Endverbraucher dem Ökologie etc. egal sind interessiert mich der Wirkungsgrad durchaus. Weil warum soll ich ein Auto kaufen, dass pro 100 km viel mehr kostet?
"Als Edison seine erste Glühlampe erfunden hat, hat auch niemand nach dem Wirkungsgrad gefragt ..."
Wenn es aber zur Zeit seiner Erfindung schon LED-Lampen gegeben hätte, die eben einen viel besseren Wirkungsgrad haben, dann hätten da vermutlich schon Menschen nach gefragt
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ich verstehe nicht warum immer nur Letalität als entscheidener Punkt genannt wird, ob staatliche Maßnahmen und Eingriffe gerechtfertigt sind. Es wurde schon im März gesagt, dass der entscheidene Grund für die Maßnahmen ist, dass man die Überlastung der Gesundheitssystem verhindern will. Tatsache ist, dass in Krankenhäusern viele Menschen mit Covid 19 liegen, die teils schwer behandelt werden müssen, und manche Krankenhäuser schon am Limit sind (Nein, ich sage nicht, dass das überall so ist, also interessieren jetzt auch "Aber eine Freundin ist krankenschwester, und da ist nichts los" nicht).
Nehmen wir an es gäbe einen Virus, wo zwar nur 1 % im Krankenhaus behandelt werden müssen und nur 0,1% sterben. Aber es wäre so, dass man als infizierter jeden ansteckt dem man auch nur 10 Sekunden nah kommt, und das über mehrere Tage noch bevor man überhaupt Symptome hat und viele vielleicht gar keine Symptome haben. Dann hätten wir auch riesige Probleme und müssten definitiv Einschränkungen vornehmen, obwohl der relative Anteil an schweren oder tödlichen Fällen gering ist.
Natürlich ist SARS-CoV-2 nicht so extrem wie dieses fiktive Virus, aber das Hauptproblem ist eben die schnelle, unmerkliche Verbreitung. Es gibt umgekehrt ja Viren mit viel höherer Tödlichkeit, z.B. HIV (zumindest als als es da noch keine Behandlung für gab). Aber da sind die Übertragungswege viel beschränkter, und ein versehentliches anstecken oder angesteckt werden kommt eigentlich nicht vor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The big bang is the stupidest theory I ever heard."
So you think that the unvierse has no beginning? Or started with a certain size and at some moment in the past it started to expanse? Or do you have a better theory for the observable red shift than "expansion"?
"some asshole wanted to be smart And feel like he know everything so he made up that dumb ass theory."
Well, actually there were critics back then, who believed that the universe were always there. The big bang theory was mainly made by an astrophysicst, who also was a christian theologist and priest (Georges Lemaître). So the critics of the theory said: It is not a neutral idea, it is biased, the guy came up with that theory because he was looking for a theory that is compatible with a Christian belief of creation. The big bang theory basicly says, that there was a moment of the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time and space. The inventor of the theory saw it as the moment of creation (as I said, he was a devoted Christian). However, in science a theory cannot just be claimed by someeone and then the other just believes it. Instead scientists looks critical at it, tested it etc. But experiments and obersvations more and more confirmed it.
"if you leave a stick of dynamite on the table that dynamite is not going to explode at least someone strike a match and put it toward the dynamite u telling me out of nowhere an explosion happen for no reason and created life created the universe "
The big bang was not an explosion. It describes the expansion of the universe starting from a singularity, so where the entire universe was packed together in one infinite small point. It doesn't tell what was before the big bang (actually it doesn't make much sense to use the term "before", because time itself started with the big bang). It doesn't tell why the universe started to expand (the inventor of the Big Bang theory says, it was God who started it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Keyless Go" is a feature already in cars since years, so that you only have to keep the "key" in your pocket. So when you come closer to the car it opens, and when you depart, it closes. But you can see the blinking lights (or in this case: The fulding mirrors), that the car actually closed. I don't have a car with this feature, but I am quite sure, that even if you don't have to push a button to close the door, you still will look at your car while departing - to check, if it really closes. And if it doesn't close at the Tesla probably the first thing, that you will do, is to check, if you have your phone with you.
I don't see here a big difference to other cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" wer will ernsthaft ein Elektroauto mit Batterietechnik wenn es doch Wasserstoff gibt. "
Vielleicht Menschen, die einfach :
- ein einfach aufgebautes Auto haben wollen, an dem weniger kaputt gehen kann
- einfach jeden morgen mit voller Batterie losfahren wollen, anstatt zur nächsten Wasserstofftankstelle fahren zu wollen, die weit weg ist
- es vorziehen energieeffizient unterwegs zu sein (Der Gesamtwirkungsgrad ist bei eine FCEV viel schlechter; das sind pure Stromverschwender, ökolgigisch fragwürdig)
- pro 100 km nur € 5,94 (Tesla Model S 100D, NEFZ verbrauch; 30 cent pro kWh) anstatt € 7,22 (Toyota Mirai, NEFZ-Verbrauch, € 9,50 pro kg) zahlen möchten (wobei der Tesla einen hohen verbrauch hat)
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is not ignorance, it is intelligence and the proper handling with reality. I have never been to Ayers Rock and I don't know anybody who has been there. Maybe I will never have the money to fly to Australia to see it with my own eyes. Does that mean I should say "Maybe Ayers Rock does not exist, all pictures and videos could be CGI, all people who claimed that they have seen it are part of the conspiracy"? No. It is stupid to say that. Ayers Rock exists and it looks like on the photos. Period.
But many people also don't understand, that you don't need to see the earth from the outside. Already decades before NASA shown us the first picture of the earth, made from the Apollo astronauts, we had globes that looked exactly like that. If you want to know how the earth looks like, you just have to travel it. It is that simple. Do you really beleive, that we cannot find out if the actual distances between two cities are not as we measure on a globe? Are all pilots, airlines etc. part of the conspiracy and they fly slower/faster/detours so that the flight durations matches with the official distances?
And finally there are of course observations that everyone can make, and that people mad 2000 years ago: Observe a sunset at the sea. What you see there, only makes sense on a globe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It is a trim level designation"
correct.
"usually used to describe the optional upgrade of the induction system of an internal combustion engine."
Maybe usually, but not for Porsche. Already before the Taycan, because (more or less) all Porsches with ICEs have turbochargers. The difference between a "Macan S" and a "Macan turbo" is not the existence of the turbocharger. Instead the difference is "more power". The name doesn't give you any information, HOW the "turbo" gen generate more power. There is a "Panamera 4", "Panamera 4S", "Panamera GTS", "Panamera turbo". They all have turbochargers, The 4 and the 4S have a V6, the GTS and the turbo actually have the same engine (a V8), just with different power. So in the Porsche world, the name turbo just means, that it is the most powerful version.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is not about "helping selling the car". They just use the exact same name system as for the other Porsches, so actually you know what you get when you are familiar with that. Also for the ICE Porsches, the name has lost its original meaning - because all versions have turbochargers now. The "Panamera GTS" has the same engine as the "Panamera Turbo", just less power.
When you see a "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera Turbo", what do you think is the difference? You think that the latter one has a tubocharger? No, both have one. Actually the difference is, that the Turbo has more power. That is all, that the name means, nothing else. You don't get any information, why it has more power (actually the 4S has a V6 and the Turbo has a V8). And now with the "Taycan 4S" and the "Taycan Turbo" it is the same: You know that the Turbo has more power, but you don't know anything about the technical differences.
And you see that also in the pricing, that they wan the other Porsches as a reference, and with the names you have the connection: The Taycan 4S costs about the same as the Panamera 4S. The Taycan Turbo about the same as the Panamera Turbo and the Taycan Turbo S about the same as the Panamera Turbo S.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Model S was introduced in 2012. But already in early 2011 BMW, Daimler, Ford, General Motors and Volkswagen announced, that their upcoming electric cars will use CCS. Why would you participate in the system of a start up company, instead of using a standard? Why should Smartphone companies uses Apples lighting plug (if Apple would allow it) instead of USB? Do you expect that the other companies should build a supercharger plug in their cars additionally to the CCS plug?
Well, I am from Europe, the situation here is different. Tesla has accepted that CCS is the standard and they actually get rid of their proprietary supercharger plug. Instead the European Model 3 has a CCS plug, so the same as any other electric car. So Teslas in Europe can charge at any fast charging station (and here in Europe and especially Germany, you have many CCS chargers, so it is no problem to make long distances trips with a Taycan), and not only at Tesla superchargers. But that also means, that Tesla had to convert all their European superchargers. So give them the CCS plug- otherwise you could not charge your Model 3 at a supercharger.
So actually in Europe we now have the situation that the EVs of other companies could use the Tesla superchargers, so at least in theory (because the technology allows it). But Tesla doesn't allow it. Well, fun fact: Last week or so people have found out that they allow it. Or let's better say: It was a software bug. People really could charge their non-Tesla EVs at the super charger for free. But meanwhile Tesla has fixed it and it is not possible anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You don't get the point. It is not about seeing it "flat" or "curved", it is about the distances. Let's say I live at a very long street, and when I leave my house and go to the left, I will come to a McDonalds, when I go right, there is a Burger King. When I look on the map, McDonalds is closer to to me than the Burger King. But when I walk to McDonalds I need 15 minutes, when I walk to Burger KIng it only takes 5 minutes. What does that mean? That the map is wrong! And I can walk with a mileage counter and can measure the actual distances. And I can do it with the lenght of all streets, the distances between buildings etc to create a map of the city.
And I can do it for the entire earth, and people have done that for centuries. And the simple thing, that many seems to forget is, that you cannot project the surface of a sphere onto a flat plane without gaps or without distortion (or the other way around). Most flat earthers say, that the earth looks about like this: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/small/4514/6118/3813/Flat_earth.jpg
Look at Australia and Compare it with Australia on the globe. Don't you think that it is possible to find out, if Australia has that shape? For example by just make roadtrips through it, from north to south, and west to east, and see how long it takes (or what the milegae counter in my car says). Then there are some maps with this style, but with a "correct" shape of australia. But that doesn't really help, becuase the shape of the oceans is still wrong.
"as for earth if one sailed to make a complete circle around the earth. couldnt tell if it was flat or round."
But the point is: He could tell how long his trip was, and that's what it is all about. Flat earthers argue, that it is not allowed to go alone through Antarctica and there are no flights across it (which is a lie, but let's believe them for this moment). So they think, that Antartica is not a continent, but instead just the icewall, that you see on the flat earth map. But they don't realize, that you can sail along the icewall to find out how long it is. And that is the only information you need.
When we assume that airlines don't want to waste money, then they will try to fly from city to city on a stright line, so they use the shortest connection. Than we can use flight times as a measurement for distances. Look for flighttimes in the southern and northern hemisphere (e.g. Sydney-Santiago-Sao Paulo-Johannesburg-Perth-Sydney and LA-NewYork-Frankfurt-Tokyo-Honuluu-LA and some north/south-connections). Then try create a flat earth map with these data, with the scale "one hour flight time equals 1cm on the map". It will not work. But it will work on the surface of a sphere. A flight from Sydney to Santiago takes about the same time as Tokyo-Atlanta. I haven't seen a flat earth map, where that does make any sense.
Or let's make a google maps/Google Earth like project by using airplanes. So we fly across the entire earth and make photos from the ground (we can leave out Antarctica for that). And then we puzzle all these pictures together for a complete earth photo - it will not work on a flat plane, only on the surface of a sphere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anaphylaktischer Schock ist in der Tat problematisch, es wird daher auch Menschen, die schonmal einen solchen hatten, vom Impfen zunächst abgeraten. Ebenso Menschen mit starken Allergien.
Ansonsten sind die Nebenwirkungen, die dazu führen können, dass man nichts arbeitsfähig ist, Immunreaktionen. Find ich jetzt nicht überraschend, ich hatte schon von unterschiedlichen Seiten gehört, dass diese heftiger und häufiger auftreten könnten als bei anderen Impfstoffen. Hab auch schon die Empfehlungen gehört, dass man vielleicht nach der Impfung einen Tag Urlaub nehmen sollte. Das sind aber keine direkten Wirkungen des Impfstoffs, sondern sagen eigentlich nur, dass er tut, was er soll: Er gaukelt dem Körper vor, dass es einen Krankheitserreger im Körper gibt, also wird das Immunsystem hochgefahren (inklusive Maßnahmen wie Fieber etc.)
Die Zitate "erschreckend hohe Anzahl an schweren Nebenwirkungen... scheinen nichts Gutes zu versprechen." sind eben von Corvelva, also einer Website die generell eher impfkritisch ist. Somit steckt da eine Wertung drin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All you "Rockets cannot work in space" people have one big problem: We don't have just "atmosphere", where the rockets should fine according to you, and the suddenly "the vacuum of space" where it would not work. Instead the air density just becomes thinner and thinner with the altitude. If your "theory" would be correct, don't you think, that the rocket should work worse in thinner air and would have less thrust?
The air pressure gets lower very quickly, at the beginning, then slower. At 13km (the maximum altitude for passanger planes) you have 18.9% air pressure. Already 35.9km you have only 1% air pressure! Only 0.16% at 50km. And at 100km you have 0.00027%. The ISS is at about 400km - but there is still no perfect vacuum, so it slows down because of the air drag and loses height. The Hubble was put out at 618km, is now at about 550km, and it keeps on losing height - because of the air drag up there.
So please can you tell me: What is the border for a rocket to work, which air pressure is neccessary? Or can you tell me the formula for the relation between thrust and air pressure?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peoplez129 Sorry, but I have to disagree. Earth is very big, so when we just take a small segment of it, we can say, that it is flat. And also most engineers, architects etc work with a flat ground. Or when we work with the Inclined plane in physics. Let's imagine gravity force vector as arrows. When we now draw a circle, wich represents the earth, and "gravity arrows" around it, then the are all directed to the center of the circle. But when we get closer, the curve of the circle becomes nearly a straight line, and the arrows are nearly parallel. And as I said: Engineers, who build for example roller coasters, work like that. Or as we talk about water: Enginerrs, who build water flume rides. Or artifical Kajak tracks for olymbic games. Or landscape gardeners, who build little artificial rivers. They all work with a "flat earth", when they plan their stuff on the drafting table. They use a flat ground and "gravity arrows", that are all exact vertical, so all parallel to each other. And the physics there is the same. Rivers would flow the same on a flat earth, when this flat earth would have an "earth pull force" that works similar to gravity. Or let's say: when the earth would be a 100 times bigger, while the continents would have the same size bute were concentrated at one spot and not spreaded over the giant earth.
"You would for example, only have waterfalls when it rains, on a flat earth, rather than constantly flowing waterfalls. "
Why? Rivers flow, because the source is higher then the outlet. And if there is a bigger step on the way, you have a water fall. And as long water comes continously from the source, you have the river all the time.
"but also the curve of the earth, and since it is a sphere, it loops around"
That would only make sense, when rivers would flow around the earth, but they don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Turbo is a feature, not the name."
But for Porsche it became just a name, already before the Taycan. What do you think is the Difference between the Cayenne S and the Cayenne Turbo? You think that the latter one has a turbocharger? Wrong. Both have turbocharger, but the "S" has a V6 while the "Turbo" has a V8. Can you tell me which Porsche Models have no turbo, just by the name? Good luck. If more or less all ICE Porsches have Turbochargers today, of course the name lost its original meaning and doesn't make much sense anymore - unless you give it a new meaning and keep just the tradition of the name. And so today not only the "911 Turbo" has a turbocharger, but also the "911 Carrera".
When you buy a Porsche, then the name "Turbo" just stands for the top trim level. You know that a "Panamera Turbo" has more power than a "Panamera 4S". But you have no idea which technology is used to get more power. So it is the same situation with the "Taycan 4S" and the "Taycan Turbo". When you know the naming scheme of Porsche, then you exactly know what you get when you have the choice between "Taycan", "Taycan 4S", "Taycan Turbo" and "Taycan Turbo S".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@birgitt2504
"Binnen 2 Monaten wurde schon losgeimpft? "
Nicht "losgeimpft", aber eben an Menschen getestet. Vorher an Tieren. Aber das war noch nicht der endgültige Stoff, meines Wissens.
" Du weißt schon, wie lange (8-10 Jahre) es normalerweise dauert. "
Ja. Vor allem aber aus finanziellen und bürokratischen Gründen. Biontech wurde gegründet um Krebsimmuntherapien zu entwickeln, die forschen schon länger an mRMA-Impfstoffen. Die Wirkmechanismen sind also bekannt. Du brauchst nur noch die RNA des Virus. Und Geld stand dieses Mal quasi unendlich zur Verfügung (dank staatlicher Zuschüsse) und die ganze Firma hat sich nur noch darauf konzentriert.
"Das wirkt auf mich, als ob die schon JAHRE vorher wussten was kommt"
Ok, jetzt wird es lächerlich. Wobei: Tatsächlich wussten viele Menschen, dass die nächste große Viruspandemie nur eine Frage der Zeit ist. Das ist jetzt auch kein Geheimnis, sondern Wissenschaft.
Und warum sollte eigentlich genau dieses kleine StartUp aus Deutschland von einem großen Plan wissen? Oder das Virus selbst in Umlauf gebracht haben (oder was auch immer für ein Unsinn dir vorschwebt). Es sind übrigens 233 Impfstoffe in Entwicklung, auf der ganzen Welt, die unterschiedlich funktionieren. Du kannst auch gern auf dem Impfstoff von Moderna warten, der in den USA schon zugelassen ist. Oder wenn dir mRNA-Impfstoffe suspekt sind, dann auf einen mit anderer Wirkweise, die bisherigen kanditaten weisen da aber bisher eine geringere Wirksamkeit auf. Der Impfstoff von Biontech ist eben jetzt der erste der Zugelassen wurde. Andere sind schon in der Testphase gescheitert, weil zu schlechte Wirkung oder zu große Nebenwirkungen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the Problem with EQS is that LUXURY does NOT grant you BETTER Performance or RANGE."
Why is that a problem? Also the regular S class is a luxury car, not a sports car. So?
"the EQS is too SLOW"
6,2 seconds from 0-100 km/h is too slow (for the EQS 450+; there is also the 580 with 4.3s and the AMG version with 3.8 s)? Sorry, but Tela just started this ridiculous acceleration war. Also the regular S class is a luxury car, not a sports car. Who really needs an acceleration that nearly give you a whiplash in real life in a luxury car? That is only a party trick.
" too HEAVY"
People who drove it say that it doesn't feel that heavy. And again, it is a luxury car, not a sports car.
" too OUTDATED Exterior"
I can understand when you find it ugly, but "outdated"? I don't like it either and I really like the Tesla Model S. But I have to admit that the Model S looks outdated meanwhile - I mean, it is a Design from 2012.
"too Short RANGE"
When Doug says that the range is less than a Tesla I was very irritated. Then I looked it up: Oh, the EPA again... In WLTP the EQS has a higher range than the Model S. And every real life test shows, that the EQS is the EV with the highest highway range in the world. (the Lucid air probably will change that).
"and too INEFFICIENT"
It is surpisingly efficient, especially for such a big car. Real life tests also show that.
"the EQS Hyperscreen is just too EXPENSIVE and cannot be MASS Produced. "
Well, I also think that it is a bit stupid, but how do you know that?Mercedes Benz or supplier Insider?
"and the EQS Computers & Software are SLOWER & WEAKER than the Tesla Model S/X. "
That maybe correct. And the UI looks like it is from Windows Vista ten years ago...
"all in all, the TESLA model S is the BEST LUXURY car you can BUY on EARTH. "
Actually most reviewers say that for the EQS.
"Mercedes , has NO CLUE how to make Battery CELLS or to make Battery pack. "
At least until now, Tesla does not make cells either, only thee battery pack. And Mercedes on the other hand also make the pack. But I agree that Tesla has more focus on it now. However, how is that important for me as a customer? How does is make a car better or worse?
"Mercedes Autopilot is only LEVEL 1 ADAS, and it PALES in comparison to TESLA LEVEL 3.5 Autopilot FSD."
I have neither driven the one nor the other, but when I see reviews people say that it is not that different. And the S-class and EQS are the first cars that actually get the permission for Level 3 (on Autobahn up to 60 km/h). All other cars including Tesla only are officialyy Level 2 in all situations, even If they are maybe capable of more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@selbstinformieren6936
"Nur hätte man wirklich Menschen retten wollen und wir nehmen an das sie Impfstoffe in Ordnung sind SOLLTE man doch den ersten nehmen!:)"
Aber war denn der russische Impfstoff wirklich der erste? Der Biontech ist doch auch schon länger fertig.
" Bei den Versuchen kam es zu mehreren Problemen so dass das Testen sogar unterbrochen werden musste!"
In der Phase 3 von BNT162b1 von Biontec? Hast du da Quellen zu? Abgebrochen wurden welche von anderen Herstellen, z.B. einem chinesischen. Oder meinst du jetzt den russischen?
"Ich persönlich denke KEINER sollte geimpft werden bei einer Krankheit mit einer weit höheren Überlebenschance von 99% !^"
Ich verstehe nicht warum immer nur die sterblichkeitsrate rangezogen wird bei der Frage, ob Maßnahmen angemessen sind oder nicht. Ignorieren wir mal das HIV mittlerweile mit Medikamnet gut behandelt werden kann, dann ist es ziemlich gefährlich und tödlich. Dennoch hat man nie Riesenmaßnahmen gefahren, welche die Freihet und den Alltag der ganzen Bevölkerung beeinträchtigen. Warum nicht? Weil die Übertragungswege sehr begrenzt, eindeutig, und von den einzlenen Leuten kontrollierbar sind. Das ist aber bei Corona nicht so, das verbreitet sich stattddessen recht schnell und unkontrolliert. Und man kann sich schnell versehentlich infizieren.
Nehmen wir eine fiktive Krankheit an, bei der nur 0,5% der betroffenen ins Krankenhaus müssten, und von denen wiederum nur 1% sterben. Aber es wäre so, dass man als infizierte über viele Tage keine Symptome hat, aber tatsächlich da schon jeden ansteckt, mit dem man nur kurz redet. Dann müssten wir auch radikale Maßnahmen mit Kontaktbeschränkungen und Schließungen einführen, weil sonst die Krankenhäuser aus allen Nähten platzen würden und insgesamt sehr viele Menschen sterben würden. Obwohl die Krankheit an sich doch ziemlich ungefährlich ist.
Impfungen wie Tetanus haben wirklich nur Relevanz für jeden einzelnen, der für sich überlegen kann, ob er sich vor der Krankheit schützen will oder nicht, für den Rest der Gesellschaft ist es egal. Bei der Corona-Impfung dagegen geht es darum, die Ausbreitung zu verhindern.
"Mein Post sollte die Logik der ReGIERungen aufzeigen und deren Panik mache"
Ach so, die gierigen Regierungen. Kannst du mal erklären, was Merkel und Co davon haben, dass Sie die Wirtschaft lahmlegen, die Leute gegen sich aufbringen, Probleme ohne Ende verursachen usw? Also auch wenn ich ein gieriger Politker wäre, wüsste ich nicht, wie mir das z.B. mehr Geld bringt...
"würde das alles stimmen was die Politiker und deren "Ex perten" erzählen hätte man den russischen Impfstoff nehmen MÜSSEN! Logik"
Nein. Der Grund möglichst schnell einen Impfstoff zu haben ist vor allem, dass wir die Maßnahmen wieder zurückfahren können.Warum sollte man da jegliche Zulassungsschritte außer Kraft setzen? Es wäre also vor allem wirtschaftlich gut gewesen im Sommer mit dem impfen anzufangen, dann hätte man vielleicht auf einen November Lockdown verzichten können. Und ich verstehe wie gesagt nicht, warum man den Russischen hätte nehmen müssen. Man hätte auch bei Biontech auf den Phase 3 Test verzichten und einfach schon im Juli anfangen können die Bevölkerung zu impfen.
Interessant finde ich ja, dass ganz am Anfang ein Großteil der "Scheiß Merkel! Böse ReGIERungen!" Schreier kritisert haben, dass Deutschland zu wenig macht. Also als z.B. andere Länder schon die Schulen und Geschäfte geschlossen hatten. Da las man dann eben viel Laute stimmen a la "Den Politiken ist doch die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung egal! Die sind doch total von der Wirtschaftslobby gekauft, die will, dass die Geschäfte aufbleiben! " usw. Dann hat sich das irgendwie gewendet. Aber klar, diese Leute sind einfach aus Prinzip gegen Merkel und Co. Also hauptsache dagegen, egal was sie tut.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the one hand I understand you and you are correct. On the other hand: look into the other Porsches, I wonder why Doug didn't mention that more clearly. Do you think that the difference between a "Macan S" and a "Macan Turbo" is a certain piece of technology called "turbocharger"? No, it is not. They both have turbochargers. There are six variants of the Panamera (4, 4S, 4 e-hybrid, GTS, turbo, turbo S e-hybrid). There is no technical reason, why the "turbo" and "turbo S" are called that way. Because all six version have turbochargers. They are just the most powerful versions. Actually the "GTS" and the "turbo" have the same engine, the "turbo" just has more horsepower. So when you buy a Porsche "turbo", then the name doesn't tell you anything about the technological differences to the non-turbo version. The only information that you get from the name is: It is the most powerful version.
So when you just look at the Porsche product portfolio and their naming, then the Taycan fits perfectly - and you know what you get, when you see that there is a "Taycan 4S", "Taycan turbo" and "Taycan turbo S". The difference between "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera turbo" is not that piece of equipment called "turbocharger" (actually the 4S has a V6 and the turbo has a V8). And so the different between the "Taycan 4S" and a "Taycan turbo" is not is not that piece of equipment called "turbocharger".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesuschristischineseAKAasian Ah, the good old "micro- vs macroevolution" argument, a distinction that only creationists make. And until now, nobody of them could tell me where the threshold between micro and macro indisputable. should be. It is completey arbitrary. If I see a pug and a greyhound on the one side (and accept that they have a common ancestor), andthen a bonobo and a human on the other side, than common sense tells you, that bonobo and humand probably also have a common ancestor just further in the past. Human share the same bones, the same organs etc. Just size and shape changed, yes, stronger than between dog breeds, but not in a way that cannot be explained. I can understand that evolution seems tricky when it comes to really big changes, so when organs seem to appearly completly new, but Monkey and Humans is microevolution!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neitherlink6612 Well, I think the people who will buy this car already have a collection of other cars in their garage and will choose another car and not this to go to social events ;-) However, in a way I know what you want to say. But even if the owners don't really use this on a track: They want a car that at least looks like for tracks, from outside and inside. That is the reason why they buy it. actually this car is not really beutiful from the outside in a classical way. And was not designed to look nice, at least not with the main focus. Another extreme example for that would be the McLaren Senna. You know that some "track editions" of cars have things like these door loops (like belts) instead of actual handles, for "weight reduction"? Of course it is ridiculous and doesn't have actual function, but it "looks cool", it looks like a track car, its a gimmick. Why to people put carbon fiber into their interiors and rear spoilers on their cars, without any function? They want their cars to look like track cars! And the AMG One has a steering wheel that looks like an F1 car. On purpose, although it is not really neccessary and you could put a "normal" and "nice looking" steering wheel into it, with the same funtionality. But the car wants to be an F1 car for road, and it wants to look like that, from the outside and the inside. An interior like in a Bugatti Chiron just would not fit to the car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When I first get in contact with flat earth, I was just irritated. To be honest, I was a bit afraid of watching the videos with all the "proofs", because maybe I would see things, that I cannot explain. But when did it I had to laugh. Because so much was just ridiculous. I thought they would come with better things. But some questions were actually legitimate. The problem is, that flat earthers say "I don't understand it, so they are lying", while I prefer to ay "I don't undertand it, so let's find out more". And by this, I learned more about physics, space travel etc. How ironic: Watching Flat earth videos made me a even more convinced globe earther! Acutally before I just believed many things, because they told us so. But now, I understand them. And it all make completly sense.
The problem of flat earthers is their obsessions on particular things like the curvature. But they don't see the bigger, simpler things. We know, how the world looks like, because we have travelled it. Period. Thousands of people use official maps everyday. And obviuosly they are correct.
If I make observations like "I can see further than I should", then there must be something wrong with my observation, or I have overlooked something. Because earth is obviosly a sphere.
The "Why should the do this?" question is relevant. It makes no sense to question everything. Here in Germany we have this joke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy
It doesn't make sense to question the existence of Bielefeld in the first place. And it doesn't make sense to question the shape of the earth. Even in the 19th century it was clear for everybody. But today flat earth would only work with a ridiculous big conspiracy. Well, not even then. Because noboy hinders you from explore the world, fly around the world, founding an airline, become an aerospace engineer, build and run satellites etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Es fehlt nur noch das Erreichen einen stabilen Orbits, ehe die Rakete als voll Einsatzbereit deklariert wird"
Tatsächlich? Das Staship ist also so fertig, dass man da einfach schon Dinge und Menschen in den Orbit schicken könnte? Das hat Türen, Innenraum, Fenster, Lebenserhalteung systeme et., also ist so richtig fertig und einsatzbereit für einen Flug mit Astronauten? Oder wäre wenigstens eine Cargo-Version fertig, also dass man da einfach einen Satelliten mit aussetzen könnte?
Also ich habe bisher nur Starships gesehen, die eine Dummy-Hülle waren. Welche zwar fliegt, aber noch nicht dafür ausgelegt ist, damit Güter oder gar Menschen zu transportieren.
Aber naja, kann schon sein dass Elon Musk sowas einfach als "voll Einsatzfähig" deklariert, der schwätzt ja schonmal gerne unsinn und teils absurde Behauptungen und vermeintliche Tatsache.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"its No where Near Space Flight"
The US definition for the beginning of space is 80 km, the ywere at 86 km. The most used international definition for the beginning of space is 100 km.
"Its a very low Earth atmospheric Orbital flight"
Again somebody who thinks that "space" is higher and "Low earth orbit", that is so weird.
- "Space" means "out of the atmosphere". So it only has to to with altitude
- "Orbit" has nothing to do with the altitude. Instead it means, that you fly around the earth so fast, that you fall around it without getting closer to the ground. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRdYPMpqQs
In the example the mountain is so high, that the cannon is already in space. Because only there it is true that the cannonball moves with a constant speed forever. In the atmosphere it would slow down because of the drag.
So "atmospheric orbital flight" doesn't make much sense. Orbit doesn't work in the atmosphere. It is easy to go to "space" (so higher than 100 km), you just need a small rocket that goes straight up like this one. This is a SUB ORBITAL rocket. ORBITAL rockets are the big machines. Reaching orbit is the real challenge, because going into orbit means, that you go higher than 100 km PLUS you accelerate horizontally (so sideways, parallel to the ground) up to 28000 km/h. Actually orbital rockets needs a big amount of fuel to reach horizontal speed, not to reach altitude.
Of course the atmosphere becomes thinner fluently, it doesn't actually end at 100 km. That definition was used because at that altitude the necessary speed to get aerodynamic uplift becomes as high as orbital speed.
1
-
1
-
Force = mass * acceleration.
Or
acceleration = Force/mass.
That is a fact, that has nothing to do with gravity. So a heavier car with the same engine (so same power) has a slower accerlation than a lighter car. Or: When two cars have the same mass, that one with the more powerfull engine accelerates faster. So the special thing about gravity is, that it depends on the mass. I mean, of course, you experience it by yourself: An object with high mass is pulled to the ground with a stronger force than an object with lower mass. So an object with twice the mass also is pulled down with twice the force. But as you see in the formula above: Twice the mass means, that an object also needs twice the force for the same accelration. So that means, that all objects fall down with the same speed independet from there mass. Now when you are in a condition, where the gravity is lower, then it is lower in genereal, for everything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It shows us that there is no gravitational pull, what we call gravity"
If there was no pull, then the objects would just stay were they are and not move in any direction. So not fall down.
"what we call gravity is actually atmospheric pressure."
How does atmospheric pressure makes objects accelerate to the ground? And they fall down in both cases, so with and without atmospheric pressure. The you can say that the pressure influence HOW they fall down but does not explain THAT they fall down.
"However, we are not given the whole experiment, we do not see the exact speed with which the two objects fall towards the ground. "
They accelerate with about 9.8 m/s^2. The ball is not much influenced by the atmosphere, so there is no difference between "falling in atmosphere" and "falling in vacuum". But the surpsising thing is, that the feather falls at the same speed as the ball.
" The image only runs in slow motion."
Yes, that is sad. However, it is weird that you think this video is so special. We have done that experiment in smaller scale in middle school.
"Another thing we don't know for sure is whether it's a full or partial vacuum....!"
Irrelevant. How do you define a "full vacuum"? Really online when there is not one single air molecule in the entire chamber? Everything accelerates to the ground with about 9.8 m/s^2. But with air, a falling object reaches a terminal velocity. It is the speed where the drag force becomes as high as the weight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Haha, my comment had nothing to do with the fact that you are Greek and I am German. I only wanted to make fun about your patriotism, and I would say the same, if you would have come from another country. And it is funny that you just keep on with that stuff. I was climbing on trees 250BC? No. I wasn't even born back then. And you did not calculate the diameter of the earth in 250BC. Eratosthenes did. I am neither ashamed for the things that the Nazis did, nor am I proud about the things that Goethe, Kant, von Humboldt, Planck or Einstein did. Not "the germans" (including me) did the holocaust, but the Nazis. Not "The Germans" (including me) discoverd the theory of Relativity, but Einstein.
And with my examples I just wanted to show that it is quite random what you choose as connection. So when an individual did something, when is it allowed to say "We did it?" When I am from the same family? From the same city? From the same region? From the same country? From the same continent? And especially when it happened 2500 years ago and borders changed over the time and people moved. I just looked up from where in Greece Eratosthenes is from. He was born and he died in Northern Africa. (Yes, I know that it were Greek colonies back then...).
But we don't need to discuss that here. Erastothenes was a great guy, and flat earthers are stupid.
1
-
"54 miles is NOT 'Space'."
The US definition for the beginning of space is 50 miles.
"It's Low Earth Orbit."
And the next one... No, they are NOT in orbit. Do you even know what that means? It means that you fly around the earth so fast, that you don't fall down even without propulsion - and that only works when there is more or less no drag, so in space.
- reaching space: go higher than 50 miles (or 62 miles if we take another definition), easy, as you can see here
- reaching low earth orbit: go higher than 50 /62 miles PLUS accelerate sideways up to 28000 km/h - that is the big challenge and needs a huge rocket
"Anything up to 1200 miles is Low Earth Orbit"
Yes, but who came up with this weird idea that LEO is not space? Makes no sense.
"and there's a reason we don't go any further"
Oh no, the van allen belt!!! That is one of the most stupid "arguments" against the moon landings. Have you sent up a probe there by yourself to measure the radiation? No. Instead the same people who tell you, that the van Allen belt exists in the first place, also tell you, that we can fly through it.
Yes, the Apollo missions flew through the Van Allen belts, yes, they went to the moon. And according to the current schedule NASA will do it again in November 2024 with the Artemis 2 mission.
And when you say that we don't go beyond LEO, are you only talking about humans? Or do you think that we cannot even sends other objects? That would be weird, because that would mean that you believe in the International Space Station (which is in LEO), but not in GPS satellites (12,500 miles away from earth) or TV satellites (22,200 miles away).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spacexsays3227
"98.9% of todays internet works vis fibre optic cables. Also laid under the sea"
Yes, of course. But we talk about the last mile here, so how your home or your device is connected to the internet.
"They can tell you want they want you to hear with these Starlink devices. "
No, they can't. Because it is just technology, that is not secret or special. And normal engineers in the field of communication know how these thing work and if they add up. Why don't you just apply at Space X for a job?
https://www.spacex.com/careers/
"The point is, there are no so-called satellites in the actual vacuum of Space."
Of course there are. What is your evidence that there are not?
"These electronic contraptions are tethered to balloons and drift high above in the atmosphere."
That makes no sense. It its completley stupid, illogical and against any common sense what you say. I don't even know where to start.
Satellites are a normal business, run by normal companies, that offer services for normal customers. Why should they lie about how their system works? It just doesn't make any sense, it is an unbelievable stupid idea. We had TV via ground based antennas, later via cable, and finally via satellites. As a customer I don't care, how it works, unless it works. So if we had "Balloon TV" as an option - why not? Why should the companies, that offer TV satelllites, lie about how their system works? WHY? And again, it is not magic technology. Just study electronics or what ever, and work there and build satellites. Or the statellites dishes and reciever. It i an open, documented technology. Otherwise it would not be possible that everybody could build satellites recievers. Nobody prevents you from founding a satellite company. There are meanwhile cheap small cube sats that are built and run by students at universities.
The same for example with Iridium, a satellites phone system. You can just buy an Iridium phone at Amazon and make phone calles in the middle of the ocean or the desert. It works. Again, as I customer I don't care how it works. So if it actually works with towers on the ground - why not just tell it? Where is the point in creating a huge lie (which is very complex and detailed but adds up in every way) about how the service that you offer work? It is just a business, you sell a service to customers, they pay for it. How would Iridium benefit from a business standpoint in doing something stupid like that?
Have you ever installed a TV satellite dish? You have to adjust it (the left/right and up/down angle) depending on your location, so that the dish points to the signal. That means that you can find out the position of the signal - you just have to calculate where the crossing point of the sightline of three satellite dishes at different location is. Oh, you haven't done that? So you claim that TV satellites don't exist, parrot instead some stupid ideas about balloon, but did not even try to debunk TV satellites by doing simple calculations?
Why do you believe in balloons and under sea cables and whatever, but not in satellites? Why do you think that satellites are something special?
Why do you prefer to believe in magic or at least unknown magic-like technology instead of just normal and well-known technology?
EVERY explanation that you have is MORE COMPLICATED and LESS LIKELY than the official explaination. It is easier to just do it instead of faking it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"but how oblate is it? "
Why don't you just look it up? Already in 1740 there were expiditions to Peru and North Scandivia to measure the radius of the earth, and they measured 6,379,500 m at the equator and 6,349,800 m at the poles. The last official model is the Geodetic Reference System from 1980 with 6,378,137.0 m at the equator and 6,356,752.314 m at the poles.
"All the photos I've seen from NASA, everything I can find shows a very spherical earth with no visible bulging. "
As you see above, the oblation is very weak. You don't see that on most photos.
"Are there any photos of earth that show the earth as oblate?"
The japanese weather satellite Himwari 8 sends a picture of the earth every ten minutes. They have a very high resolution and I have read, that you can measure the oblate. I have never tried it.
" Or is it very minor, so minute that it can't be detected in a photograph?"
More or less: Yes. You need a high resolution photo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also zunächst mal ist "USB-A" und nicht "USB 2.0" gemeint, denn das 2.0 beschreibt die Datenraten bzw. den "Inhalt" und nicht das Steckerformat. Es gibt noch USB-B, dass ist dann der für die Geräte Seite (findet man z.B. bei Druckern, ist dieser eher quadratische) oder in Mini-Ausfühung an älteren Handys. USB-C wurde unter anderem entwickelt um beides zu vereinheitlichen, also damit es da keine Unterscheidung mehr in Host und Client gibt, sondern an beiden Seiten das gleiche ist. Mein Google Pixel 2 Handy ist Ende 2017 erschienen und wurde schon mit einem USB-C Netzteil ausgelieftet. Also ich verbinde mein Handy mit dem Netzteil mit einem Kabel, das an beiden Seiten USB-C hat.
Ich schreibe das hier gerade an einem MacBook (schon ein paar Jahre alt), welches gar keine USB-A Anschlüsse mehr hat, sondern nur noch USB-C (wobei ich das auch albern und übertrieben finde). Also mein handy verbinde ich mit dem Macbook mit einem Kabel, das an beiden Seiten USB-C hat. Über USB-C gehen auch andere Sachen wie Video und mehr Strom, das ist der Vorteil. Dadurch hat das MAcbook gar keine anderen Anschlüsse. Ich kann hier so einen Adapterbox an das Macbook anschließen, an dem ich dann sowohl USB-A-Anschlüsse hab, aber auch HDMI für meinen Monitor, und auch das Netzteil kann ich daran anschließen. Das Macbook hat also auch keinen speziellen Netzteil anschluss mehr sondern wird (wie ein Handy) über USB-C geladen, ich kann da sogar einfach irgendeine der vier Buchsen für nehmen. Also ich kann über die selbe Buchse mein Handy an meinem Macbook laden (dann lädt also das Macbook das Handy) oder aber auch das Macbook an einem Netzteil anschließen (dann lädt das Netzteil das Macbook). Es haben auch immer mehr andere Computer USB-C anschlüsse, teils eben auch zum laden.
Und eben auch andere Autos (und darum geht es dem Redakteur hier im Video) haben mittlerweile USB-C im Innenraum anstatt USB-A. Manche haben beides. USB-C hat wie gesagt auch den Vorteil, dass darüber mehr Strom gehen kann. Wenn der Autohersteller also im Innenraum USB-C verbaut (und diesem genug Strom liefern lässt) könnte ich daran nicht nur direkt mein Handy laden sondern auch mein Macbook. Allerdings ist das wiederum nicht so dringend, denn der Ioniq 5 hat ja praktischerweise auch eine 230 Volt Steckdose unter den Rücksitzen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know if your comment is ment to be ironic, but I'll take it serious here:
a) Please do some research about history. You mix up two different things: The shape of the earth and the heliocentric model. Already in ancient greece (so more then 2000 years ago) people had the idea, that the earth probably is a sphere. I mean, it is quite obvious, when you make some simple observations like a sunset. But still people believed, that the sphere-shaped earth is the center of the universe, and the sun and all the stars revolve around it. Copernicus was the first one who changed that.
b) Learn how science works. It does NOT mean, that somebody claims something, and then we believe him because he is a "scientist". Instead, scientis discover things, that are just there, and that would have been discovered sooner or later by anybody else. So anybody can make the same observations like the one who did it first. That means: You can make the same observations that Copernicus did. So for example observe the movement of Mars and find out, that it makes some weird loops at the sky. And that these observations make much more sense, when the Earth and the Mars both move around the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"3x the price of a Model S"
Taycan 4S: 103,800 $
Taycan Turbo: 150,900 $
Taycan Turbo S: 185,000 $
Model S LR 72,615 $
Model S Perfomance 92,615 $
So you take the base Model and compare it with a full equipped Turbo S to come to that exaggerated "3 x the price"?
"50 % the range"
The next exaggeration.
"and without a decent supercharging network."
I don't know if people just keep on saying that (so ignoring that CCS networks are growing), or if the American situation (I just guess that you are from the US) is really so different from Europe. Here in Europe there are about 500 Tesla supercharger stations and about 650 CCS stations with more than 100 kW (overall there are even more than 6000 CCS stations, but most of then only with 50 kW)
"whoever's buying this has no clue about his other options,"
LOL. It is funny that since Tesla people only looking on range (and 0-60 and Autopilot) as the only features that are important to a car. If that was the case, then there would be no reason for the existence of most cars. There are many orders for the Taycan, and their benchmark is more their own line Up (so the ICE Porsches) than Tesla.
1
-
"400km "
Nach WLTP
"ja wie die Stickoxid Lüge bei Audi, im Leben nicht,"
Hat mit Lügen nichts zu tun. Aber viele scheinen keine Physik zu verstehen. Ein Auto verbraucht nunmal mehr, je schneller es fährt. Ist halt so. Problem ist eher, dass wir durch den miesen Teillastwirkungsgrad von verbrennungsmotoren daran gewöhnt sind, dass die Diskrepanz da nicht so groß ist, und ein Diesel dann bei 120km/h auf der Autobahn nicht viel mehr verbraucht als im Stadtverkehr. Manche meinen, es sei ein nachteil von Elektroautos, dass die Reichweite bei hohen Geschwindigkeiten so einbricht. Das ist aber eine falsche Betrachtungsweise. Es ist eben NICHT so, dass der Verbrauch bei hohen Geschnwindigkeiten bei E-Autos unnormal hoch ist, stattdessen ist er bei Verbrennern bei niedrigen Geschwinidgkeiten unnormal hoch. Der theoretische Verbrauch eines Autos ist in der Tat bei 150km/h durchaus doppelt so hoch wie bei 100km/h.
Reichweitenangaben sind immer nach gewissen Normen, und die Hersteller sind gesetzlich verpflichtet die Angaben nach der jewiligen Norm zu machen (führt z.B. dazu, dass die gleichen Elektroautos auf den amerikanischen Webseiten der Hersteller eine geringere Reichweitenangabe haben als auf den europäischen). 400km nach WLTP bei einem 95kWh großen Akku erscheint mir jetzt in keinster Weise übertrieben viel, sondern verglichen mit anderen E-Autos sogar eher etwas pessimistisch. Beim Leaf mit 40kWh-Akku gibt Nissan eine WLTP-Reichweite von 285km. Wenn man viel Autobahn fährt haben kleinere E- Autos wegen des konzeptionell bedingten übrigens häufig schlechteren cw-Werts teils einen höheren Verbrauch als große.
1
-
Flat earthers don't believe in gravity. I am not kidding. They say that it is an unproven theory. They believe that things fall down, if they have a higher density than the surrounding. Well, that is not wrong, but form, that's all. They don't believe that there is a force that pulls things down. They have more like "Things fall down, every child knwos that, and we see that" standpoint.
But the scale experiment is interesting. But the should weigh an object at (or near) a pole, and at the equator. And they can make it in a closed room, where the air pressure and everything else is identical. They will see, that the object is lighter at the equator. The explanation: a) earth is not a perfect sphere but oblated at the poles and (so less gravity at the euqator) and b) the earth is rotating, so you have an centrifugal force at the equator, but not at the poles. I wonder which explanation they will have. Probably they will tell something about magnetic or electric fields. Becuase, you know, Nikola Tesla was the only true scientist (all others are liars, satanists, illuminati, jesuits...)...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do you think, that we need to see the earth from space, if we want to know how it looks like? That doesn't make any sense. We had accurate globes in our living rooms already decades before NASA shown us the first picture of the earth made from outer space. If you want to create or check a city map, do you have to see the city from high above? No. You just can walk/go/drive through the streets and measure the lenghts of streets, the distances between buildings etc. So why do you think that we need to see the earth from far away when we want to create a world map? When you really think, that we cannot find out down here, if the earth is really a sphere, then you think, that we cannot find out the actual distances between two cities. You think that all maps could be wrong and nobody would notice it.
Besides that, you just have to observe a sunset at the beach to know, that the earth cannot be flat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"It's time to support a company that had the balls to detach themselves from old dinosaur fossil fuels"
You don't need balls for that if you are a new company that only produces BEVs. But as a big car company it is not easy to decide how much effort the should put on EVs. They cannot just stop producing ICE cars. They would be bankrupted then, because most people still want ICE cars.
"One beautiful example about how far is Tesla's technology in the electric realm is when Tesla remotely enhanced the battery capacity, and therefore driving range, of its Tesla vehicles for owners in Florida who were trying to escape the impact of the recent Hurricane Irma. "
I accept that Tesla is leading in some aspects, but that is really a bad example. Tesla used to sell a series of cars with a 75kWh battery, that are sold as 60kWh cars because the capacity is artifically limited. And you could later upgrade to 75kWh just by a simple Software Update. I don't know if that is really a cool thing. It is the same as if Apple would only produce iPhones with 256GB Storage, but would sell a version with only 64GB storage for a cheaper price. The storage would be limited by software to 64GB, but you could later get the full 256GB via Software Update for charge. When Tesla released this "60kWh" version there were many people who critizied that - they feel that Tesla would sell artifically crippled cars and then asks for money to de-cripple them. Some feel pranked by that business model.
There are also people who are skeptical about the OTA-Update /Remote thing in general. If Tesla is able to enhanced the battery capacity via remote (and as I said: It was reduced before; actually Tesla doesn't sell this pseudo-60kWh-Model anymore), they could also reduce it via remote. Many people don't want that the manufactorers can do stuff with your car without your permission. And they also think of "DLCs" like in Computer games. So there you buy a full price computer game that should be complete. But they squeeze more money out of you by selling stuff for extra charge. Somebody of Porsche also said in an interview, that they think about Power Upgrades via OTA-Update in the Future. That could also mean "I want to have fun at the weekend, so I buy 100 extra-horsepower for two days". Many people get the impression: If my car is capbable already is capabale of this (So 15kWh more battery capacity or 100HP more" then why do you artificially cripple it down?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"they told us space is a vacuum"
Who cares what THEY said (and who even is that?). The atmosphere becomes thinner very quickly, you can feel and measure that by yourself, you don't have to aks other people for that. Already at the pinnacle of mount Everest you only have less than 1/3 of the air pressure that you have on sea level. At 36 km it is only 1%. And when you go higher it is less and less.
"making any jet propulsion"
Jet propulsion? Jets need air for the combustion, that it of course not possible. So they use rocket engines that have carry not only the actual fuel, but also the oxygen with it.
" how could they use rocket propulsion to slow their speed in a vacuum"
Why shouldn't a rocket work in a vacuum? So you are also one of these people who have this weird idea that rocket engines have to "push against the air" or something like that? No. That it not how they work. Not down here, not in space. And also jet engines don't work like that, they never did, and nobody ever claimed to. Instead they work with Newton's third law of motion and the conversation of momentum. When you sit in a wheelchair with a bowling ball in your hand, and then you throw the ball away from you, you will move backwards. Have you ever felt the recoil of a gun? You will also have that recoil in a vacuum, because "Bullets push against the air" is NOT the reason for the recoil. And that is how jet or rocket engines work: Mass is shoot out of the back of the rocket, so it moves forward (with the same momentum).
But let's assume that all the engineers, who actually design jet engines and rocket engines, don't know how they work, but instead you know better how they work. Then please explain more details. So how is the relation between air density/air pressure and thrust? I see two options
a) Is the a a certain threshold of air pressure, and when it is above that threshold a rocket engines works fine and exactly like on sea level, but when it is below it it suddenly doesn't work anymore? If yes, where exactly is that threshold?
b) Or is there a relation like "half the air pressure = half the thrust"? If yes, what is the exact formula?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaybyday2381
In 2006 the International Astronomic Union made a new definition for planet, and that include three aspects. So a planet is an object that
a) orbits around the sun
b) its mass is so high that it has a (more or less) spheroid shape
c) it is the dominating object in its orbit, so that it has "cleared" its orbit from other objects
Pluto doesn't fulfil (c). That is the reason why it was downgraded. Objects that only fulfil (a) and (b) belong to the new category "dwarf planet". The main reason why the discussion about Pluto started (well, actually it older, but that was the final moment to do something) was the discovery of Eris, which could count as a tenth planet. But instead Pluto and Eris are part of the Kuiper Belt, which consists of thousands of objects beyond Neptune.
The same thing happened in about 1850. We had 13 planets back then. Ceres, Juno, Pallas, Vestra and Astrea are between Mars and Jupiter. But as more and more objects were found there, they decided instead, that they are all asteroids in the asteroid belt, and no planets anymore. But as Ceres is a sphere, it was upgraded from "asteroid" to "dwarf planet" in the same moment when Pluto was downgraded from "planet" to "dwarf planet".
And I just state the facts without any personal opinion :-) Actually that planet definition is also discussed among scientists and there are some who disagree and don't think that it is a good definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Space my ass."
It was space by US definition (80 km) but not by the most used international definition (100 km).
"Low Earth orbit "
Wow, again somebody. I just don't get it, why are there so many people who think that LEO is inferior to space? It seems that many people have no idea what orbit even means. It makes no sense to say, that you are in orbit, but not in space. It seems that people pick up the term "Low Earth Orbit" and don't even know what that is... the same with "Van Allen Belts..."
- "Space" just means "out of the atmosphere". The atmosphere becomes thinner fluently, so you cannot even say where that is. The 100 km definition is also more or less arbitrary (and is aviation based). But you can say that you are in space when you are higher than 100 km (or higher than 80 km according to US Air Force...). So it only has to do with the altitude
- "Orbit" on the other hand has nothing to do with the altitude. Instead it means that you fly around the earth so fast, that you fall around it forever. Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRdYPMpqQs
Notice that the mountain is so high that the cannon already is in space. Because only there the cannonball moves at a constant speed forever. In the atmosphere it would slow down because of the drag. Of course we don't use a cannon on a mountain, instead we use rockets to accelerate satellites or spacecraft horizontally (so parallel to the ground) up to 28000 km/h.
Going into space is easy, you just need a small rocket like this, that goes straight up so that you go higher than 100 km. But orbit on the other hand is the big challenge. For that you need a much bigger rocket with much more fuel. Because you have to go higher than 100 km PLUS you have to accelerate sideways up to 28000 km/h. And Because of that high speed re-entry from orbit also is a big challenge.
No, this thing doesn't go into orbit. And nobody ever claimed that it does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vornamenachnahme8500
Wie kommst du auf 800 km Reichweite? Laut Tesla Website hat die Plaid Version eine Reichweite von "nur" 637 km. Die Nicht-Plaid Version dagegen hat 652 km. Du meinst wahrscheinlich den Plaid+ , den Tesla angekündigt hatte und sogar schon Vorbestellungen angenommen hatte, aber dann im Juni gecancelled hat.
Der EQS 450+ hat laut Mercedes 770 km. Auch im Praxistest zeigt sich, dass der EQS eine höhere Reichweite hat als das Model S. Bei 120 km/h kommt Bloch beim EQS 450+ auf 515 km:
https://youtu.be/fctD116AtKo?t=2202
Nextmove bei 120 km/h mit dem Model S Raven Perfomance auf 424 km:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK0oC83y4L8&t=1240s
Auch wenn das noch der Raven Perfomance ist und eine geringere Reichweite hat als der aktuelle , so wird das nicht soviel sein, dass das aktuelle Model S den EQS übertrifft.
Ja, das Model S beschleunigt besser. Aber das ist wohl kein Problem für den EQS. Die Verbrenner S-Klasse kauft sich auch niemand wegen der Beschleunigung. Tesla hat da auch einen komischen Trend gestartet. Letztlich sind solche extremen Beschleunigung nur ein Partytrick und in der Praxis schon unangenehm.
Aber das du eben die Reichweite und die Beschleunigung nennst ist typisch, Tesla hat es irgendwie geschafft diese beiden Dinge als Hauptkriterium für viele durchzugeben. Wenn du einen Vergleichstest zwischen einem BMW 7er, einer MErcedes S Klasse und Audi A8 siehst, sind da wirklich Reichweite und 0-100 die Punkte die darüber entscheiden, welcher von denen das beste Auto ist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"but we always just believe what we are told"
It is your problem when you only "believe" these things because they were told you. Others actually understand them. And especially they use common sense.
"we as society will believe anything scientists tell us"
You have no idea how science works. The basic idea, to distinguish into "we" on the one hand and "scientists" on the other hand is already your problem. In science we don't have authorities. We don't believe scientists. And scientists don't invent things, they just discover things, that anybody else would have discover sooner or later. And scientific theories only become respected when others make the same observations and see, that thy are true and that they work. Do you think that we just BELIEVE Copernicus when he said, that the planets orbit around the sun and not the other way around? No, instead he described the observations, that brought him to this: the planets make weird loops at the sky and change their speed. But if they don't orbit around the earth, bu taround the sun, and we also orbit around the sun, then their motions make sense, because then they make nice ellippses at constant speed.. Everybody can just make the same observations that Copernicus did.Also you can.
And the important thing is, they WORK. Otherwise it would be pointless. We can USE the physics, that flat earthers don't believe in to build things (it is called engineering). We USE the knowledge about the earth, to predict things. In simple things like maps. And nobody prevents you to become a scientists. Actually many astronomic discoveries were made by amateurs. You "believe" in thousands other things. You also believe AMD, Intel and Samsung in how computer chips work. Why? Well, because it makes no sense that they should lie about it! Then why shouldn't we "believe" the companies who offer satellite phones or satellite TV about how their system works? It just would not make any sense, when they would lie!
And the most important thing: For a simple thing like the shape of the earth you don't even need "scientists". People came to the idea already more than 2000 years ago. It is not that hard, you just have to observe a sunset at the beach to see that it cannot be flat. And we have travelled the earth since centuries - how do you think maps are created? And so we created maps of the entire earth, and so we know how it looks like. If you your really considere, that earth is maybe not a sphere with a diameter of about 6371 km, then you really think that we cannot find out the actual distance between two cities and that "the elite" prevents us from doing so. How stupid is that???
That brings us again to "We can use it". I can take a 100 year old globe (so before NASA...), measure the distance between two cities on it and so can estimate how long a flight will take. And then I look it up, and BINGO! It works, Flat earthers cannot do that. They claim that all maps are wrong, but have no evidence for that claim. And cannot offer a working flat earth map.
"flat Earthers do have the easiest theorys to think about "
Actuall they have no theories at all.They can explain nothing, they can predict nothing. Everything is magic in their world view and doesn't follow physical laws.
",like the guy who brought a leveler on a plane and the level showed that the air plane was traveling exactly level the whole time while not gaining or losing height which in theory would mean the earth and ground is perfecty the same level "flat""
That experiment does neither prove a flat nor a globe earth. It would have the same result on both. But because of other simpler observation we know, that it is not flat.
"so what im saying is that its alot easier to prove and explain the Earth is flat than that its round "
No. Peroid.
"but we will always just say oh these guys are crazy"
Because they are. 2000 years ago it would be OK, then they would be just wrong. But today is a big difference. If you claim today, that the earth is flat, than you think that millions of people are part of a huge conspiracy that want to hide (for whatever reasons...) the shape of the earth since centuries. It just doesn't makes sense and would not work. It is ridiculous. You are crazy when you think that. Imagine you have never been to Australia, don't know anybody who have been there, and maybe will never afford a flight there. Is that really a reason to think, that Australia doesn't exists? That all the videos and photos you see are fake or CGI, that the people who claim to have been there are liars? No. And you would call everybody crazy, who would be sceptical about the existence of Australia, just because he was never there in person. And to be sceptical about the shape of the earth is exactly them same! Actually it is even worse, because you really have to go to Australia when you want to prove it with your won senses, while it is easier to prove the shape of the earth wit your own senses.
"but if you really look at their points and explanations its alot easier to understand and agree with"
No, they are just plain wrong, stupid and make no sense. For example they explain a sunset like that: "The sun moves away, and finally it is so far away (so after sunset) that we cannot see it anymore". Bullshit! That is not what I see with my own eyes! Flat earthers always say that we should use our own senses instead of blindly believe what others say. They are the ones who don't do that! The hypocrisy is their main problem, they really just parrot what they see in other youtube videos, I always read and see the same "arguments". But never critical thinking or own arguments. The trend started with Eric Dubays "200 proofs that earth is not a spinning globe". Well, of course that are not proofs, many are just lies or bullshit. But I don't find flat earth arguments, that are NOT among them. They just parrot it. They all blindly believe what they see in flat earth youtube videos and don't question those arguments.
"would you believe the guy explaining his theory to you that involve simple tests and explanations"
Yes, I would. But that will be the guy who explains the globe. And as I sad, that situation would be relevant hundreds of years ago. Today I would ask the flat earth guy "Then how do satellites work? How can travellers or logistic companies work if the maps are wrong?..." And the only answers to all my questiond, that the flat earthers have would be "THEY ARE LYING!!! THEY ARE DECIEVING US!!!"
"or would you believe the guy telling you we are on a ball thats spinning like 10,000 mph like a spiral while also orbiting the sun 10,000 mph at the extact same time?"
You make the same mistake as the flat earthers. Why do you mix up "globe" with "heliocentricsm"? As I said, we know the earth is a sphere since more than 2000 years. You find that out by simple observations like a sunset at the beach. And finally by just travel around the entire earth. But at first, it has nothing to do with things like "the earth spins and orbits around the sun". You need to observe the sky in more detailed for that. So people came to the idea centuries later.
" all photos of the complete earth arent single photos,there a bunch of photos takin from a satellite than collaged together to make one photo l"
That is wrong. Period. Here you show what I have said about the flat earthers: You blindly believe what you see in "NASA is lying" videos on the internegt, you don't question it, you don't do research if it is correct. Why do you think that there are no photos of the entire earth? Have you even looked for them? First of all there are of course the analoge photos that were taken by the Apollo astronauts ("Blue Marble" for example). But today we also have satellites that are far enough away. For example the japanese satellite Himawari 8 is on a geostationairy orbit. And it takes a live picture of the entire earth every ten minutes:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp
And besides that: We had accurate globes in our living rooms decades before NASA has shown us the first picture of the earth taken from space. The whole idea, that we need to go high up to find out how the earth looks like, is plain stupid.
"but Scientists tell us the Earth is round so must believe them"
Yeah, like scientists tells us that Australia exists!!! So we only believe it because of them!!!!
"bigger question is the Universe, when did it begin time wise?"
In the past there were different views, many said, that it always existed. But then we made observations, that it expands. Which brought us to the idea, that it always expands and there had to be a beginning when it was all in one tiny point. It was mainly a catholic priest who came to that idea, which later became famous as "big bang theory". According to current observations and calculations that should be 13.8 billion years.
"what was before it began?"
We don't know. Actually that is the basis for all science. To say: We don't know. And then you make observations.
"Time had a beginning at some point,it had to right?"
Yes, according to current science, also time started with the big bang,
"What caused the beginning ?"
We don't know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Why are there two charge ports"
That is a handy feature, also the Audi e-tron has it. There are sometimes discussion about which side is the "right" side for a charging port on an electric car. If you are parking longitudinal at the street at a public charger, then it should be on the passangers side, otherwise the cable would stick out on the street. But when you have a garage (especially a norrow one), then it is better to have the port on the drivers side. So here you have both.
"And what’s the advantage of DC? I’m guessing that those fast charger places would use DC to make the charging much faster and more efficient,"
Exactly. AC charging is for slow charging at home, you can plug it more or less immediatly the car in your wall socket. There are also public AC chargers. They are slow, but they are cheaper and make for charging if the car is parking anyway there for a time (for example over night at home or a hotel, or at work, or when you are shopping for hours...). DC ist fast charging, and made for stops for long trips. Tesla has build a big network of DC-Chargers called "Superchargers" but they are only for Teslas. Porsches uses CCS for DC-charging, which is another standard, that all other car makers uses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For Porsche the name "turbo" already has lost its original meaning a while ago. Yes, all Porsche "turbos" with ICEs at least have a turbocharger. But the point is: Alle other have turbochargers, too! So for example you have six versions of the Panamera:
- Panamera 4
- Panamera 4S
- Panamera 4 e-hybrid
- Panamera GTS
- Panamera Turbo
- Panamera Turbo S e-hybrid
So why do you think do only the two top versions use that name? Because they are the two top versions. That's it. Actually The GTS has the same engine as the Turbo, just less power. And all six have turbocharger
Imagine you have a "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera Turbo" and you want to know the differences. Do you think that the name gives you any information about the technical differences? No. It just tells you "The Turbo has more power". But it doesn't tell you why it has more power. Actually The turbocharger is not the reason, instead the 4S has a 2.9 litre V6 and the Turbo has a 4.0 litre V8. Oh, and did you know that the difference betwen the Panamera 4 and the Panamera 4S is, that the S-Version hass a Bi-Turbocharger while the normalversion only a single turbocharger?
And so it is exactly the same when you see a "Taycan 4S" and a "Taycan Turbo". It just tells you, that the Turbo has more power, but not the technical reasons why it has more power. So when you know the name scheme of Porsche, you know what you get. Actually even the pricing fits do that: The Taycan 4S costs about the same as the Panamera 4S, the Taycan Turbo about the same as the Panamera Turbo, and the Taycan Turbo S about the same as the Panamera 4S.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kamaljeet-ew2ve With "zero gravity" you mean "wheightlessness", and that is a certain state, when no other force than gravity is affected on you. It doesn't mean that there is no gravity. Well, it can, but it doesn't have to. The range of gravity is unlimited. It gets weakerr with the distance but never zero. Just look at the formula for gravity. Every floating astronaut that you see is moving or falling.
Space is nothing special. We all live in space. The atmosphere is the exception, not the other way around. But the atmosphere is gets thinner fluently, so there is not even a real, natural definition for the beginning of "space". The astronauts in the ISS are wheightless, because they are in an orbit. Orbit means, that you fly around the earth so fast, that they neither fall down, nor fly away:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jou 333: Wer sagt denn, dass der Regera der "offizielle Nachfolger" des 1:1 ist? Auf der Wikipedia-Seite steht das tatsächlich so, aber auch dass der Agera der Vorgänger sei. Das macht aber alles wenig Sinn. Vom 1:1 wurden nur sechs Stück gebaut - ist da schon sehr fraglich, da überhaupt von einer eigenen Modellreihe zu sprechen, die einen Vorgänger und einen Nachfolger hat... Der 1:1 ist letztlich nur eine Variante des Agera, bei dem Leistung gesteigert und Gewicht reduziert wurde.
Der Regera dagegen ist ein komplett neues Auto, und auch die Idee ist eine andere. Während man eben beim 1:1 versucht hat, dass Gewicht radikal zu reduzieren, wollte man beim Regera mal was neues wagen mit dieser Hybridtechnik - die schwer ist. Und man hat auch mehr Komfortfeatures in das Auto gepackt. Schau mal hier, was Christian Koenigsegg dazu sagt:
https://youtu.be/AMmdl77VOxg?t=1m58s
"We focused on everyday driveability...more sound isolation... electric seats..."
Schon wenn man sich die Cockpits anschaut fällt das auf (Der One:1 sieht da mehr nach Rennwagen aus, der Regera dagegen luxuriöser).
Hier wird jetzt ja ständig mit Bugatti verglichen, und schon mehrfach wurde gesagt, dass das schwer zu vergleichen ist. Tatsächlich wäre aber wohl der Regera der passendere Konkurrent zu Bugatti. Denn auch bei Bugatti geht es darum, auch Alltagskomfort zu bieten. Bzw. geht wohl die Faszination beim Chiron davon aus, dass er sich im Alltag recht normal fahren lässt. Während so ein Agera RS oder gar 1:1 eher ein hochgezüchteter kompromissloser Rennwagen ist. (der Chiron dagen eher auch Gran Turismo Aspekte hat)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amyalewine Who is "they"??? What are "real pictures" according to you, and from what exactly? And what "stories" do you even mean ? I mean, just buy a telescope. This is just a bigger one that can see further. And nobody prevents you to go to a university and study astrophysics or something like that. There you learn to work with the results of the telescope and what they mean. And sometimes I wish that they would not even publish these images. There are many other measurment tools, satellites, probes... that generate data used by scientists. Just boring "numbers" maybe, the public doesn't care about it. Why should the numbers be fake? Here it is the same, but as a "byproduct" they also made nice pictures for the public. And again, it is all open, why do ask things like "Why can they not show real pics?" when you just can get the "real pics" (if you mean the raw data from the telescope) online, no problem, that are just not shown in every news article on TV.
Scientists are just normal people who have a certain job. And thousands of people and companies worked on the telescope, and thousands of sicentists around the world uses it and work with the results. Absolutly no secrets. Your "it is all CGI" narrative makes absolutly no sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is it a 100% fact that this is a complete different thing than the refurbishment of the Falcon 9, or is that just whishful thinking or what SpaceX claims? Don't get me wrong, this is an absolute fascinating engineering Marvel, and I am not a SpaceX hater. But Elon often made wild claims, and many fans just blindly applaud it and take it as if it was already reality ("passenger Earth to earth transport" with starship as an alternative to airplanes is still a stupid idea that will never happen, sorry). The breakthrough idea is not "building the strongest rocket ever made" or "catching huge rocket boosters". Instead the vision was: Space flights become as common as airplanes, because you basically only have to pay for the fuel. And we still have to wait if that actually will work out.
Don't forget: Already with the Space Shuttle back then they claimed that flights will become cheap and can happen often. But that didn't work out, because the refurbishmend of the Orbiter needed much more money and time than expected. And does SpaceX have the ultimate idea for the Starship (so the upper stage, that goes into orbit) concerning their heat tiles etc, so that it can be get ready for the next flight quick and cheap? Yes, Starship will land. Yes, we will see the first full flight of of an entire Starship and everybody will applaud. But that alone is not what was promised. That alone will not change the world.
I read a german article about ITF5 . He often write about space stuff, it was not an "anti" article, but just quite neutral about the goals that were achieved and the challenges that are still there. One interesting point was, that SpaceX had to put more heat protection on the upper stage that was heavy, and that the fuel that is needed for the landing is more than expected. So that this particular flight did not have much payload capacity. Oh, and an important part of the idea was the refueling in orbit. I have heard that is already necessary not only for Mars, but already for the moon? And even for that it needs several refuels? Besides computer graphics we haven't seen anything about refueling, it is just an idea.
However, I observe it, it is fascinating, but I will wait what actually will happen and what promises really will be fullfilled. And I don't join the "This changes everything!!!" choir too early.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see this for the first time, but I often had the exact same thoughts concerning "If we can terraform Mars, then we can re-terraform Earth". You often here that we "destroy our planet" through pollution, climate change, nuclear wars... and because of that we have to go to Mars. But that doesn't make any sense. Even a completely polluted world after a nuclear world war is still a better enviroment to live than Mars. If we have to live on Mars under glass domes and only can go out in space suits, than we can do it here on earth, too! If we terraforme MArs, we can re-terraform earth. And concerning overpopulation: There is much space in the Sahara, Antarctica, Siberia... You think, it is not possible to live in these enviroments? But they are still faaaar better envirements to live than Mars!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are you kidding? You never wondered why the first mission that landed on the moon was called Apollo 11 and not Apollo 1?
AS-201: First launch of the Saturn IB rocket, suborbital testflight of the Apollo command module
AS-203: first orbital launch of the Saturn IB, without the Apollo spacercaft
AS-202: suborbital testflight of the Apollo command module
Apollo 1: Should have been the first manned flight, but during tests on the ground a fire break out and all three astronauts died
Apollo 4: First launch of the Saturn V, test flight of the Apollo command module, unmanned
Apollo 5: testflight of the moon lander in earth's orbit, unmanned
Apollo 6: Second unmanned test launch of the Saturn V
Apollo 7: first manned launch of the Saturn 1B into earth's orbit
Apollo 8: first manned flight around the moon, so without landing
Apollo 9: manned test of the moon lander docking maneuver in earth's orbit
Apollo 10: manned flight to the moon, test of the moon lander, but without landing
Apollo 11: first landing
So actually much more testing than Artemis:
Artemis 1: First flight around the moon, unmanned
Artemis 2: First manned flight around the moon
Artemis 3: Landing on the moon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JesusistheonetrueGod So funny, how strong religious people argue against the big bang. Actually the big bang theory was mainly made popular by an astronomer, who was also a theologist and priest. Back then some other scientists critized the theory, called in "pseudoscience" and said, that it was made by people, who were not neutral scientists, but instead were searching for a theory that is compatible with a belief in God who created everything. The Big bang theory basicly says, that space and time has a beginning. The big bang describes the moment of creation. The other theory, that was favoured by the criticial scientists, is, that the universe was always there, and that there was no creation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AdamsDetail
" and their car is twice the cost with half the range. "
Half the range? Don't listen to EPA range, but real life instead. Here actual tests (OK, It is "Model S long range vs Taycan 4S" and not "Model S Perfomance vs Taycan Turbo S") at 120 km/h:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK0oC83y4L8&t=1311s
376 km vs 424 km is in no way "half the range".
"However yes the Taycan does beat the Tesla in one category"
Only one? You really think that if there is a usually compolete review of the two cars, the Taycan would only win in one category?
" So out of the 2 categories that really matter 0-60 and Qtr mile"
They really matter? Maybe in the USA. Here in Germany nobody cares about drag races, it is a weird sport to us. I have never understood why Tesla focus so much on 0-60 numbers as the only quality for the perfomance of a car.
"On the other hand Tesla still makes a faster VEHICLE than Porsche, its called a rocket ship. "
Are you kidding? No, Tesla doesn't make rocket ships. You mean SpaceX? A complete different company, that just happened to have the same CEO?
"Tesla's cars literally drive themselves.
"
German cars, too. In several tests there were no big differneces in the self driving systems of Tesla vs other car makers. Tesla just makes a better marketing for that and allow their cars to do more, while the other call there system more carefully "assistance".
We have just a drag race here between a Tesla and Porsche and the Porsche wins. That's it. So why all these excuses that I hear from the Tesla fan boys? Why cannot they just say "Hey, cool, congratulations to Porsche"? And why do you make a discussion about how cool American companies are, which has nothing to do with all this? I am not a Porsche fanboy (actually I am not even a real car guy, I am insteresting in what's going on in the industry an how technology progresses, but I don't even own a car, I walk, use my bicycle ad use public transportation), in other discussion I even often defend Tesla when others have prejeduces and talk bullshit about them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tburnley4498 OK, I am not sure if you are trolling, but I take it seriously: Yes, State of Washington is to be considered in the North-West of the USA. But for the third time: Why do you think, that a river, that flows from south to north, would flow "upwards"? You can take a globe and turn it upside down, but Washington state is still in the north west of the USA. The south pole is still in Antarctica. You can also turn a map as you like (actually there are maps, where North is down and south is up, because there are people with a bad spatial visualization ability, who have problems, when they use a map on a car trip and drive from north to south), it doesn't change anything.
1
-
1
-
@tburnley4498
"Our world is flat with conture, valleys, hills, mountains, etc"
No, it is a sphere with conture, valleys, hills, mountains, etc
"Go up on a mountain and you can see everything down below. "
Yes. And you can look further than from the ground. That only is the case on a sphere, not on a flat earth.
"with water flowing until it finds its level. "
They flow always downwards. So for example from a source in the Mountains down to the sea.
"Also, there are many rivers that flow North"
Yes, of course. And there are also rivers that flow south, east or west.
" just google it and then explain why?"
What should I explain there? There is nothing to explain. You are the one who has to explain, why it should be a problem that rivers flows north an a globe.
1
-
1
-
SLS mit Orion is erfolgreich beim ersten Versuch im November 2020 wie geplant um den Mond geflogen. Starship dagegen ist bisher nur ein Versprechen, mit große Worten verkündigt von einem Mann, der schon viel Bullshit erzählt hat, absurde Behauptungen aufgestellt hat, und Ankündigungen nicht eingehalten hat. Wir werden sehen. Spannend ist ja eher, dass NASA selbst tatsächlich darauf baut, dass Starship die Mondlandefähre wird. Wäre lustig, wenn SpaceX es nicht hinbekommt dass zum geplanten Start von Artemis 3 hinzubekommen und die NASA auf SpaceX warten müsste... SpaceX hat auch schon ne Menge Geld in die Starship entwicklung verballert, letztlich teils auch Steuergelder. Und es muss sich noch zeigen ob diese ganzen Behauptungen (also wie billig ein Starshipflug sein wird) überhaupt stimmen werden. Das SpaceShuttle ist auch damit angetreten billig und häufig zu fliegen. Auch das hatte schon eine voll wiederverwendbare Oberstufe, wo gedacht war dass ma schon bald nach einer Rückkehr aus dem Orbit wieder mit starten kann. Tja, hat dann doch nicht geklappt und die Wiederaufberaitung war viel aufwändiger und teurer.
Wenn der Plan aufgeht, wird die NASA für die erste mondlandung mit Artemis 3 SLS weggeworfen haben. SpaceX dagegen hat schon jetzt einige Raptor Engines und Prototypen-Material weggeworfen. Ob es einen Markt dafür gibt, dass super schwerlast raketen ständig in den Erdorbit, oder zum Mond oder zum Mars fliegen (so dass sich dann irgendwann rechnet) muss sich auch noch zeigen. Auf absurde Ideen wie "Starship ersetzt Flugzeuge auf der Erde" muss man hier gar nicht erst eingehen...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nein, langfristig eh nicht. Die Bevölkerung wächst schon weniger schnell als vor einigen Jahren, es flacht ab, vermutlich wird so bei 11 Milliarden der Gipfel erreicht, dann geht es zurück. Mit steigender Bildung und steigendem Wohlstand werden auch weniger Kinder gezeugt, erleben wir überall auf der Welt. In einigen Ländern gibt es jetzt schon ein umgekehrtes Problem, also schrumpfende Bevölkerung. Wird langfristig auch auf die ganze Welt zu kommen.
Dass Problem ist aber, dass mit diesem Wohltand auch der Ressourcenverbrauch und CO2 Ausstoß steigt.
Mal plumpes Beispiel: In einem armen Dorf der dritten Welt ist es normal, dass eine Familie fünf Kinder hat, war schon immer so. Aber auch dort gehen mehr und mehr Kinder in die Schule etc. Eine Tochter schafft es, studiert, zieht in eine Stadt, führt ein "westliches, modernes Leben". Die wird keine fünf Kinder bekommen wie es noch Ihre Mutter tat, vielleicht nur eins. ABER: leider wird diese dreiköpfige Familie dann letztlich einen größeren Ressourcenverrbauch und CO2 Ausstoß haben als eine siebenköpfige Familie aus dem armen Dorf wo sie herkommt.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Länder_nach_CO2-Emission_pro_Kopf
Wenn alle Menschen so leben würden wie die ärmsten 20% momentan, dann hätten wir auch bei 20 Mrd Menschen wohl weniger Probleme als jetzt.
Wenn dagegen die Bevölkerung nicht mehr wachsen würde, aber einfach alle jetzt schon lebenden Menschen das Konsumniveau von Deutschland erreicht, dann wären wir jetzt schon am Ende.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So people travel around the world since hundred of years. With ships, airplanes, cars, trains etc. And you really want to say that it is not possible for us to find out the actual distance between two cities? That some "elites" prevents us from doing so? That all airlines, logistic companies, pilots, orivate travelleers... are part of the conspiracy?
I wonder how you go around. So according to you, all official maps are wrong. Well, we "globies" just use the maps and they work. And can look on a map, measure how far it is from A to B, and know how long a trip will take. Isn't it sad that flat earthers cannot do such simple things, because they don't have a working map?
1
-
1
-
But where is the point in using the term "turbo", if all the others are also turbocharged? Because that is the case for Porsche. Already before the Taycan it has lost its original meaning. Look at the Panamera line Up:
- Panamera 4: 3.0 litre V6, turbocharged, 330 HP
- Panamera 4S: 2.9 litre V6, bi-turbocharged, 440 HP
- Panamera GTS: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, 460 HP
- Panamera Turbo: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, 550 HP
Does the badge "turbo" give you any information HOW the extra power is generated? No. Actually the GTS and the turbo have the same engine, just with different power levels. "Turbo" is just the name for a certain trim level. So actually Porsche should have get rid of the term in general, because it doesn't make much sense anymore. But they keep it for traditional reasons. And so they keep it for the Taycan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, Pluto is the 14th planet. The others are:
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And I wonder why they even offer the smaller battery
a) Range ist still an issue for many people when it comes to electric cars, and even with the bigger battery the range of the Taycan is not that great
b) the bigger battery does not only provides better range, but also more power and higher charging speed
c) It is "only" 6500 Euros! In other EVs with different battery sizes, it is usually they main difference between two versions of a car, and the relative price difference for the bigger battery is quite high. So that for some peoply there is a reason to take the smaller battery when they think, the range is enough for them. But here? The base price is already 105000 Euros! And the bigger battery is just one option among tons of others. And obviously Porsche-Customers are willing to pay much extra money for (sometimes even gimmicky) options: Electrcic Sport sound 500€, Sports seats: 2000 €, dynamic chassi control 3200 €, ceramic breaks 9000 €, park assistance 1400 €, leather interior 4000 €, electric charging port 620€, ambient lightning 400 €... and the list goes on and on...). So why the hell should anybody not buy the bigger battery?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wieso können die sich nicht wehren? Die Impfung ist freiwillig, und es wurden in vielen Heimen daher auch nicht alle geimpft. Außerdem wurde das Personal in den Heimen zur gleichen Zeit geimpft, und nicht nur die Bewohner.
Und wie kommst du darauf, dass das die Versuchskaninchen sind? Es haben sich in der Testphase über 44000 Menschen freiwillig als Versuchskaninchen gemeldet, davon haben die Hälfte seit Juli den Impfstoff bekommen. Keiner ist gestorben. Und dass erst die Menschen in Seniorenheimen geimpft werden, hat man eben hier in Deutschland so entschieden, ein paar andere Länder auch. In wiederum anderen Ländern hat man sich entschieden, dass zuerst z.B. Ärzte geimpft werden.
In den USA ist der Impfstoff schon zwei Wochen länger zugelassen, da sind mittlerweile 2 Millionen Menschen geimpft, inklusive des Präsidenten.
Aber Fakten interessieren dich wohl eh nicht, du verbreitest lieber Angst und behauptest einfach irgendwelchen Unsinn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kizzb39
"it should be fake for rich miscreants gain and is fake to generate trillions of dollars in revenue just to keep ppl money slaves.."
Makes no sense. This is just a tourist attraction for rich people.
"so they can shoot rockets up.."
Who exactly is "they"? Rockets are common technology that exist for decades. Theree are private companies and start ups that launch rockets. To bring up satellites built and run by normal companies. There are also small satelite built and run by students at universities.
". and over like a rainbow and down into the ocean far out where nobody sees.. "
Wrong, they go into orbit, and you have zero evidence that they go into the ocean. Why should they? You really think they don't have enough fuel to run the engines for a few minutes longer? And you know that you can just go to a university and study aerospace engineering? It is weird that you probably believe it when an aerospace engineer tells you how an airplane works, but not when he tells you how a rocket or spacecraft works? Where is the difference?
However, why do you mention big orbital rockets? This here is nothing like that. It is a small aircraft with a rocket engine. It launches underneath the wings of a big airplane, then steers straight up, and reaches 89 km before it falls down. So wich part don't you believe? I don't care about "space", it means everything and nothing, there is nothing special about "space", we call an arbitrary altitude the beginning of space. Would you believe it when they never claim to be in space? Actually some people say they don't reach space, because the mist used definition is 100 km (but US Air force uses 80 km). Or is it the altitude and you would believe it when it only reaches 50 km?
"God said he put a firmament like molten glass over earth until the Second Coming."
But he never mentioned the altitude of the firmament. Why do you believe that airplanes or balloons that reach 20 km are real? You could also say that they are fake because of the firmament. But it seems you only come with your "firmament" argument when it is called "space". But as I said, I only care about facts like altitude, not vague terms like "space". So at what altitude is the firmament? Or: When you hear of something that goes high up, how do you decide if it is possible or not due to the firmament?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oldhardy I also want to say: Think about it. There are thousands of aerospace engineers in the people. Pople who actually build stuff like that, work in that field, have studied this. Why haven't anybody said yet, that it doesn't work? I can imagine, that at several universities in the world, professors even use this as exercises or examns for students involving this thing. And as I said, also the JPL is just a part of a big university, nobody prevents you from working there or study. You really think the people in the video are actors?
Or think about it from the other side: Even regular criminals put effort into complex plans, getting alibis etc, so that investigators don't find out, who the commiter is. And if often works. But a big federal agency, with a big budget, resources, access to intelligence agencies,... make up a hoax story about a Mars mission and present something very open and offensive (it is in every media, you can get much information about it...), that can be easily debunked by a model helicopter pilot? Really, that is what you believe? That NASA etc. are THAT stupid?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@powermetal26 "The Radiation in the Van Allen belts that go around the earth is so extreme that living matter simply can't pass through it and survive. "
So can you tell me how high the radiaton dose is that the astronauts got when they passed the Van Allen Belt? Can you give me a number, so how many milli Sievert?
Have you send up your own probe up there and measured it? I don't think so. It is so funny to hear this Van-Allen-Belt argument by moon landing deniers so often. It makes no sense. The same people, who say that there is a radition belt in the first place, also tells you, that it is possible to pass it. Imagine I would tell somebody that I have a natural hot tub in my backyard. It is hot, but sometimes I go in there for a few minutes, than I leave it because it becomes uncomfortably warm. Now this guy says "Liar! It is so hot there, that you would die or at least would get injuries!" Don't you think, that this guy is stupid? I have never said, how exactly hot it is. I have never said, that it is so hot, that you die. And he has never seen the tub. He only knows of its existence by me. It would make sense to say "You are lying, you don't have a natural hot tub in your backyard". But it makes no sense to say "You are lying, the tub in you backyard is to hot to enter!"
"This is a scientific fact that was known, acknowledged and discovered by the scientific community long before the Apollo missions."
Oh, is it? Can you pleae show me the scientific papers, the sources, that exactly says that? The scientific community accept that the Apollo missions were real. How do you even know that there is a radiation belt? I can understand a bit when people say "I only believe things I have seen/measured by myself". But in this case you believe them, when they say that there is a radiation belt. But you don't believe them, when they say, that you can pass it. That doesn't make sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Can this be charged on a tesla charging station? "
No, why should it? Tesla has build their own system and they let only Teslas charge there.
"There should be a standard that mandates that charging stations work for all makes of Evs."
Well, in the Europe we more or less have that :-) For AC charging the Type 2 connector is mandatory by law, all EVs have it, also the european Teslas since the beginng (so also with the first Model S).
DC charging is a different thing, there is Tesla Supercharger, Chademo and CCS. Here in Europe, CCS is more or less the standard now. Chademo is dying out, Nissan is the only one who sells the Leaf in Europe with Chademo, and everybody wonders why they do that. The EU supports CCS, and in Germany it is even demanded by law that when you build a public DC-charging station it must have at least CCS (others are allowed, but the big companies like Ionity uses CCS-only). Because of that, Tesla were not allowed to build more superchargers in germany or they had to make a fence around it and declare it as private. But now even tesla changes to CCS: the European Model 3 doesn't a supercharger plug anymore, but instead CCS. And at the same tame all European superchargers are converted so that they have the classical supercharger cable and additional a CCS cable, so that also the new Model 3 can charge there. Still an advantgae for Model 3 drivers: They can use the Superchargers AND all the other CCS chargers (while all other EVs cannot use the superchargers, although it would be possible technically).
The situation in America seems different: Teslas and the superchargers are so successfull, while the CCS and CHademo network is not that good. And there is not even a decision if CCS or Chademo will "win"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raupenimmersatt6906 "Kein deutscher Hersteller hat ein Ladenetz " Warum sollte ein Hersteller ein eigenes Ladenetz haben? Fändest du es wirklich sinnvoll, wenn das alle so wie Tesla machen würden, also es dann z.B. ein BMW eigenes Ladenetz gibt, an denen nur BMWs laden können? Tankstellen wurden auch nicht von Autoherstellern gebaut. Aber tatsächlich haben sich ja BMW, Daimler, Ford, Audi, Porsche zusammengetan und Ionity gegründet (da können dann aber alle laden, auch die neuen Teslas mit CCS). Derzeitiger Stand in Europa: 61 Standorde in betrieb, 51 Standorte im Bau. Aber neben Ionity gibt es ja noch ganz viele andere CCS Lader, und es werden immer mehr.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jemielhaider454 Ah, the Van Allen Belt agrument! I always have to read it more and more (of course, you guys just parrot each other, nobody come with own arguements) and it just doesn't make any sense. Have you send up a probe into the Van Allen Belts and measure the radiation there? So high is the radatioin dose, that the astronauts received during the pass? Oh, you don't know? Then how can you say that it wasn't possible? How do you even know that the Van Allen belt exists in the first place?
NASA scientiests told you, that it exists! The same people who tells you, that there is a radiation belt around the earth in the first place, also tells you that it is possible to fly through it. So how does it make sense, that you say, it was not possible to pass it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree, that the comparison with Highlander or Avalanche is stupid. But especially when you look into Porsches nomenclature, it makes sense. Because if you are into Porsche and its nomenclature, you know what you get when you see the different Taycan versions.
Already before the Taycan the name "turbo" has lost its original meaning for Porsche. Look at the Panamera line Up:
- Panamera 4: 3.0 litre V6, turbocharged, 330 HP
- Panamera 4S: 2.9 litre V6, bi-turbocharged, 440 HP
- Panamera GTS: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, 460 HP
- Panamera Turbo: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, 550 HP
Does the badge "turbo" give you any information HOW the extra power is generated? No. They all are turbocharged. Actually the GTS and the turbo have the same engine, just with different power levels. "Turbo" is just the name for a certain trim level. So actually Porsche should have get rid of the term in general, because it doesn't make much sense anymore. But they keep it for traditional reasons. And so they keep it for the Taycan.
1
-
1
-
Iompgta Du solltest etwas globaler denken. Das tun die Autohersteller nämlich auch, weil Autos ein Weltmarkt sind, und man nicht nur für Deutschland produziert. Und Deutschland ist nun mal quasi das einzige Land auf der Welt, bei dem Endgeschwindigkeit überhaupt eine Rolle spielt. Daher wird "geringe Endgeschwindigkeit" bei der Frage, ob sich das E-Auto durchsetzt, völlig unwichtig sein. Schau mal, was das Land mit dem größten Automarkt (der auch für die Deutschen Hersteller sehr wichtig ist) vor hat:
https://www.golem.de/news/elektromobilitaet-china-will-verbrennungsmotoren-abschaffen-1709-129975.html
Übrigens ist es sehr lustig zu sehen, wie unterschiedlich man dieses "Verflechtung von Politikern und Autoindustrie" auslegen kann. Von andererseite (also den E-Auto Fans) lese ich immer, dass die Audohersteller eben selber weiter Verbrenner wollen, die Elektroauto-Entwicklung bremsen, und eben die Politik zu ihren Gunsten beeinflusst.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@James-zp5po
" space starts at 62 miles high"
At 62 miles the necessary speed to get aerodynamic lift becomes as high as orbital speed. And some people thought to use that to define where "aviation" ends. And so use it as the "beginning of space". But that is of course an arbitrary definition. There is no beginning of space, the atmosphere becomes thinner fluently - you really never noticed that? You have never felt the pressure change in your ears when using a fast and high elevator? You have never heard that people need oxygen supply when climbing the Mount Everest? You have never wondered why oxygen masks fall down from the ceiling of an airplane in emergency? Already at 22 miles you only have 1 % of sea level air pressure, so not much air anymore. On the other hand there is still some atmosphere at 250 miles, so that the ISS loses more than 200 feet of altitude every day because the drag slows it down.
" because rockets can not produce thrust in a vacuum"
Bullshit. Why should that be the case? It seems you have no idea how rocket engine works. But OK, let's assume for a while that you are right, while all the thousands of engineers (including the ones who design the engines) don't know how rockets work. Then please give some details about the relation between air pressure /air density and thrust.
Is it that there is a threshold? So the engine produces 100% of thrust all the time, also when you have less and less air, but when the air pressure or air density goes below a certain threshold, it suddenly doesn't produce any thrust at all? If yes, what is the threshold?
Or is there a relation like "half the air density = half the thrust"? Or a combination? So what is the formula?
And BTW even if it would be correct that the rocket would suddenly don't produces any thrust anymore at 62 miles - why should it immediatly fall down? Have you ever throw something straight up, or shoot it straight? You know that there is inertia, so that the object keeps on going? The New Shepard tourist rocket goes straight up and stops the engine at about 40 miles. But at the end reaches 66 miles before falling down. If it would run all the time until 62 miles (so also reach higher speed then) it would go even much higher than only 66 miles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you think that the difference between a "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera Turbo" is, that the latter one has a turbocharger? Wrong, they both have turbochargers. "Turbo" just means "more power", but it does't say why it has more power. There is a 911 Carrera 4, 911 Carrera 4S, 911 Turbo, 911 Turbo S. They all have turbochargers. And now we have a Taycan 4S, a Taycan Turbo, a Taycan Turbo S. So the name scheme is the same, you know exactly what you get. Just names for different trim levels, it doesn't tell you if the car has a turbocharger or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@penelopepitstoppp "have you measured the force of gravity? "
Are you serious? Everybody has a measuring tool for gravity at home, for example in your kitchen. It is called "scale". An object with a mass of 1 kg is pulled with a force of 9.8 N to the ground. That is a simple fact. You can measure and feel it. But that could be just an "earth's pull force", so not gravity. However, the cavendish experiment, where you can see, that also small object attract each other, is a standard exprmient that students at a university make and that you can do at home.
Let me guess, you think it is all about "density and buoyancy"? If yes, then you just show that like nearly all flat earthers you don't think for yourself, but just parrot what you have seen in flat earth videos. Even if you come up by yourself or because of the bible, that the earth is flat - there is absolutly no reason to deny an earth's pull force. Can you please construct a roller coaster that works, so where you can calculate the forces that affects on you and on the construction (so what an enginer does), but ignoring gravity and instead just use "density"?
"Have you gone to "space"?"
We live in space, so yes. But porbably ou mean "outside the atmosphere"? Well, not me, but why shouldn't it be possible to reach a certain altitude? The air obviously becomes thinner the higher you go, that is a simple fact. The problem is that you guys think, that space is something special. You instead claim that there is a dome. Have you been there and touch it? Can you tell me where it is? Do you have any evidence for its existence? The burden of proof is on you.
"Has anyone you know personally ever traveled outside of low earth orbit? "
Oh, now "outside LEO" is your criteria? Actually the Apollo missions were the only times where humans left LEO. So if you just would be an "moon landing denier" it would be an argment, but as a flat earther it doesn't make sense. So you think that it is possible to go into orbit, but only into low earth orbit? OK, then you accpet that earth is a sphere.But I am afraid you don't even know what "orbit" means.
1
-
@penelopepitstoppp " The beauty of the simple truth is that it is simple. "
Wow, I think here is something that we agree on in a way! There is also a similar principle in science called "Ockham's razor": The simplest solution is usually the correct one. And if that is the case, then Globe earth wins over flat earth!
Newtons three laws of motion and gravity are really simple laws, that describe most things that we see in our everyday life. These laws are used by engineers since centuries, and thanks to them we have all the inventions that we have today. And they are universal, that is the point of science. So we can calculate the trajectory of a cannonball by using the same laws as we use to calculate the movements of celestial bodies, so can also predict events like eclipses. But flat earth on the other hand is totally complicated, becasue everything is special there. The earth is something special, the sun is something special, the moon, the stars... They all follow different rules, and you have no idea what these rules are. We can take a globe and a light source, and can simulate night and day, we can see where night and day on earth is, it works, it matches with reality. So our model of the universe is very simple. But look at the sun on flat earth. It has to be a light source, that looks like a perfect circle all the time from all places on earth. But that works like a spot light, with a very weird, special focus, so that it only enlightens a certain part of the earth is a very specific way. That is overly complicated and there is no model in a smaller scale that works like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They will use heatshields, and to me, that is still the biggest challenge. I mean, this flight was epic, and it is amazing what they achieved. But the biggest question mark to me is still the full reusing of a spacrcaft after ree-ntry. The Space Shuttel already was a vehicle that came back from orbit, landed on the ground, and was made to be "reused" and so flights should be cheap and should happen often. But the reality was: It was more like "refurshibable" but not "reusable". So it took much more time and money than planned, to make it fit again for the next flight.
I totally believe that Space X can make a starship that comes down and land as they plan it and as they show in the simulations. But the question is: What will be the conditon of that thing after re-entry from orbit, and how easy can it be used again? Elons idea is: With a fully reusable spacecraft the(more or less) only costs for a launch will be the fuel. Like it is the case for airplanes, and only because of that flights are affordable to everyone. We will see, if he can realize that...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"So do the objects fall down due to an extrinsic force or an intrinsic quality? "
Would you ask that question also when it comes to magnets? Because there is not really a difference here. I mean, in Newton's model gravity is a force (and we can work with it), in Einsteins model it is the curvature of space time. But I don't know why it is important here.
" If the force of gravity was pulling both objects in air and vacuum, why would there have been a change of results?"
If the force of a car engine accelerates a car, then why does a car in air a top speed, while it keeps accelerating in a vacuum? You know that drag is a thing? That it works as a force and we can calculate that force?
"Why does the bowling ball move faster through air?"
In a vacuum you only have one force: The gravity that pulls the thing down. So in a vacuum you see pure gravity working.
In air another force comes into play: drag, so air resistance. And that works exactly against the gravitational force. It increases with the speed. You can calculate the max speed of a car, if you know the shape and the size: It is the speed where the drag becomes as high as the force that the engine can produce. In free fall we talk about "terminal velocity". That is the speed, whee the drag force becomes as high as the gravitational force.
"Because its heavier? "
Yes, and because it has better aeordynamics. But one alone would be enough. With feather and ball we have to extreme examples, so that the result is more obvious: On the one hand the weight (so the gravitational force of the ball is bigger, and on the other hand the drag of the feather is higher. Also if we would compare a light and hollow ball with a bowling ball (same size) the bowling ball would become faster, because the weight is higher, although the drag is the same. So it is all about the relation of weight and drag.
"But what makes it heavy? Isn’t it the gravitational pull that makes it heavy? "
Yes. And that depends on the mass. That is quite obvious: It is harder to lift a 10 kg object than a 1 kg object. The 10kg object is pulled to the ground with a force of about 9.8 N, the 10kg object with a force of 98 N
" What makes the bowling ball move the air underneath it more easily than the feather? "
The higher force. Because of the higher mass.
" When the air is removed shouldn’t this extrinsic force now find it more easy to pull the more massive object down? "
When you want to win a drag race, put you more mass into the car? No, it is the opposite. You want a lighter car. Because objects with more mass a harder to accelerate. Newton's second law: F=ma. Force = mass x acceleration. Or: acceleration = Force /mass.
So twice the mass = half the acceleration. But in the case of free fall, gravity is the force that provides the acceleration. And that depends on the mass. So twice the mass = twice the force. And that means, that the acceleration of a free falling object is always the same, independent from the mass.
"Does it know to pull stronger in air and then less stronger in a vacuum? "
No, as explained, it always pulls exactly with the same. But in air, there is a counterforce.
You really completely overthink this, I don't know at what point you make false assumptions. An engineer can calculate the top speed and acceleration of a car, and they it when they build one. And such an engineer can use the same formulas for these falling experiments an will get the results, that you observe here.
1
-
@jaydenwilson9522
"things fall because they are denser than the medium they inhibit.
things rise/float because they are less dense than the medium the inhibit...."
That is just an observation that explains nothing, and it dosn't provide a bigger usable model of how things work. Why do they go down? The medium is all around the denser object, so under it, next to it, above it... then why don't the go sideways? And here in the vacuum you don't have a medium around it at all. And the objects fall down and accelerate at a specific rate. can you please use your buyoancy and density model to calculate how much time it needs for a certain object in a certain medium when it hits the ground? And how fast it at that moment?
"1kf of helium, 1kg of wood and 1 kg of iron..... one rises, one floats and the other sinks.... "
With a medium around it they would all sink. What you describe is only the case for a certain medium around it.
" solely mass-based gravity is wrong "
No, it is exactly correct. Gravity is only mass based. Because the gravitational pull of 1kg of helium is exactly the same as 1kg of wood, which is 9.8 N. But with a medium you have buyoancy. And that is a force that works against it, similar to drag. And gravity explains buyoancy. You just ignore that there are other forces than gravity involved when it comes to how objects fall or rise.
"newton wrong"
That is so stupid and tells that you have no idea about science. The point of science it: IT WORKS! Newton's model WORKS (and yes, it is of course a model; and it doesn't work for very high speed and masses, there we need Einsteins model where gravity is not a force but the cruvature of space time"). We can USE it. We don't "believe" Newton. Instead engineers uses what he discovered 300 years ago succesfully.
Simple question, I hope you answer it honestly. Imagine there are two brand new big and fast roller coasters, and you are the first human being who has to ride it, but you can choose:
a) the roller coaster that was designed by an actual engineer, so who uses Newton's physics to calculate for example the forces on the passengers and the construction
b) the roller coaster that was designed by somebody who things that Newton is wrong and instead designed it by gut feeling. Or by using this density stuff...
Which roller coaster would you ride and why?
"when they make a vacuum both the feather and bowling ball are WAYYY denser so they "virtually" fall at the same rate...."
Yes, here you see pure gravity. But again, why do they fall down in the first place? can you provide a model that describs everything, that can be used, so that we can predict things and that describes the things around us?
" but in another medium like the ocean, atmosphere or something else they fall at different rates relative to the density difference."
The video shows that in the atmosphere the objects fall at a different rate. So what is even your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"you get in the car to drive it not watch doug demuro on youtube while the car drives itself." Most people get in cars, because they just have to go somewhere. Public transportation ist often not an option (bad connections...), taxis are too expensive to take them every day, some distances are too far for bikes (or people are too lazy for bikes...). When I look in the faces of all the people sitting in a car in rush hour, then I am sure that most of them don't do this, because they like to drive cars. They just do it, because they have to go to work, and the car is the fastest/cheapest/only... possibilty to go there.
Is car driving really always a pleasure for you? Have you never been in a traffic jam, where you would prefer watching Doug Demuro Videos?
"it'll be a sad day in the enthuist automotive world when all cars end up being electric and autonomous" As long as there are people who wants to drive by themselves, car manufactures will build and sell them. Probabyl we will get Robo-Taxis, so cars that don't even have a steering wheel, but also will have cars, that mainly will focus on self driving (e.g. sport cars). But I think mostly we will have cars, that you can drive by yourself, but where you also can activate the Autopilot mode, if you want to.
I don't even have a car. I live in a big city in Germany, I do most things (for example they way to work, but also most things in my free time) by walking or with the bike. If the weather is too bad or the way too far, I can use the public transportation which is very good here. Sometimes I rent a car via carsharing (e.g. when I have to transport big stuff), but I don't like it. Driving with the car through the city is no fun, but often just frustrating.
I can understand that there are car enthusiast like you and fully accept that (actually I am also interested in cars, otherwise I would not watch Dougs Videos...). But I am really surprised that you don't understand, that the majority of car drives are just done because people want to get from A to B. And not because they want to drive a car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kids grow up building models of the solar system and learn the name of the planets. And now it is one less, so some have this idea that it was "kicked out of the solar system". Which is stupid.
Every kid knows Mercury. But only a few know Ganymed, Titan, Callisto, Europa,... Although Ganymed and Titan are larger than Mercury. Although Titan has an atmosphere (unlike Mercury). Although Europa has oceans of water and could have or had life (unlike Mercury). They are moons, but actually much more interesting than Mercury. So the problem is not the re-classification of Pluto, but instead the discrimination of all the fascinating objects that are not planets. Pluto did not become less cool, interesting, fascinating,... just because it doesn't count as a planet anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just some history: There were three companies that were called Bugatti, that actually only share the brand (so Name, Logo etc.)
- The Original "Bugatti", founded by Etorre Bugatti in France. Famous in the 1930s, but closed in 1963
- "Bugatti Automobili SpA", founded in Italy in 1987. An Italien entrepeneur acquired the brand, built the EB110 in Italy
- "Bugatti Automobiles S.A.S.", founded it 1998 in France by Volkswagen. Also here VW did not buy the Italian company, but just the brand. So the current Bugatti is a new founded company, for traditational reasons Volkswagen founded it as a French company (in Molsheim, whre the original company was set) and not in Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@
Mohanabai Shanmugam: Actually I am not with you here, that argument is problematic. Because it is based on the same wrong mind set that flat earthers have, and that is the root of all this bullshit: They think that "Believing Scientists" is the reason why we think that earth is a sphere. And you now even talk about "NASA" scientists, that makes it even more problematic.
Flat earthers always talk about NASA, want to show how they are lying, that their videos are fake etc. And I always say to them: It doesn't matter! NASA is irrelevant! Even if NASA is lying, it would only mean, that space travel is fake, but is has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Many people believe that we need to see the earth from far away to know how it looks like - which is also wrong, of course.
They also often say that e.g. Isaac Newton was a jesuit or a free mason. The problem here is that they think, that this would matter. It doesn't! He could be a nazi-communist-child molesting scammer - it doesn't matter, because we don't just believe him. Instead he just discovered things, that are there, and that can be discoverd by everybody else. He was just the first one.
In another report about the conference somebody is interviewed, who says, that he was also a globe believe and was sceptical about flat earth first - he "wanted to believe the government". What a bullshit! The governments has nothing to do with nature and the earth. These people always say, that we are are sheeps who blindly believe what our teachers or the mainstream media tells us about the earth, space etc. But now the flat earthers are "awake" and they "question things". Arrgh, I really hate to hear that! Science is not about believing authorities. It is really important to understand that.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you wanted to say :-) So, in a way you are right, of course. And yes, common sense is important to know, which things you should trust and which not. And that flat earthers really have lost the measurements here. But it was important for me to make it clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How about actually looking things up and double check things? Siri is dumb or you did not listen good enough. It is not 100 miles but 100 kilometers (so about 62 miles). And the capsule reaches a maximum of 107 km before it falls down(again, look it up instead of just take what they say here). So according to that they were in space . I recommend wikipedia, so both for informations about this flight, but also for the question "Beginning of space".
However, The 100 km (62 miles) definition is arbitrary. The atmosphere becomes thinner fluently, so you cannot say where it ends. Already at 36 km air pressure is only 1% compared to sea level. The US definition for the beginning of space is 80 km (50 miles). But on the other hand there is still some atmosphere at the altitude of the ISS (250 miles /400 km), that it loses more than 50 meters of altitude every day because the drag slows it down.
I recommend to avoid the term "space", it doesn't mean anything. They reached 107 km /66 miles. That's it. Who cares how you call it? If the rocket would have stop the engine earlier so that they would have reached only 56 miles (like you said) the experience would still be the same, just a bit shorter. Oh, and according to the US definiton it even still would be "space". But again, who cares?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Look at the Panamera line Up:
- Panamera 4: 3.0 litre V6, turbocharged, 330 HP
- Panamera 4S: 2.9 litre V6, bi-turbocharged, 440 HP
- Panamera 4 e-hybrid: 3.0 litre V6, turbocharged, additional Electric motor, 462 HP
- Panamera GTS: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, 460 HP
- Panamera Turbo: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, 550 HP
- Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid: 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharged, additional Electric motor, 680 HP
So please tell me: Which "technical specification" is the reason to give the two most powerful versions the "turbo" badge?
Actually the GTS and the turbo have the same engine, just with different power levels. "Turbo" is just the name for a certain trim level, because more less all Porsches today have turbochargers (so both the "911 Carrera" and the "911 turbo") . So actually Porsche should have get rid of the term in general, because it doesn't make much sense anymore, already before the Taycan. But they keep it for traditional reasons. And so they keep it for the Taycan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why can you see an airplane with your naked at the sky that is 10 kilometers away, but not a mosquito, that is only 10 meters away? ;-) But it is not only the size, especially not in this case. If we want to see something, then light rays from that object has to reach our eye (or a camera...). And there are two options:
- the object itself sends lights
- the objects reflects lights.
Nearly all the stars that we see are - well, stars. So they emit light. So we can see them, even if they are far away. The only objects that we can see, although they don't emit light, are the planets in our solar system. They are so close to the sun, that they reflect enough of its light so that we can see it. Yes, we have meanwhile found planets in other solar systems, so that are further away then Planet 9. But we haven't actually "seen" them. Instead we noticed them, whe they passes their star, so that the star became darker from time to time. So you can say we see the silhouette of the planet when it moves between its star and us (not really, too far away to see a clear sillouette, but you get the idea.
But planet 9
- doesn't emit light by itself
- is so far away from the sun, that it doesn't reflect much of its light
- doesn't move in front of a light background so that we could see the silouette)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry, but just because YOU don't understand it, it doesn't mean that they don't know what they are talking about. "9 planets as fact"? That was never the case, it was just the state of knowledge. We talk about science, not religion. In science nobody claims "we have 9 planets and that is the ultimate truth". Instead we said "At the moment we have found nine objects, that we call planets".
In ancient times people knew about five planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Because those are the ones you can see with the naked eye. Then people realize, that earth itself is a planet, so we had six. After the telescope was invented we found Uranus, so we had seven. In the beginning of the 19th century we discovered smaller planets between Mars and Jupiter: Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vestra, Astrea. And in 1846 Neptun was discovered - and like explaineed in the video, the idea for the existing of a planet beyond Uranus came before because of the anormalies in the motion of Uranus. So we had 13 planets.
But at the time we also find more and more small objects between mars and jupiter and so they decided: We cannot call them all "planets", it would be hundreds then. So let's define a new category "asteroids" for all these objects. So Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vestra and Astrea were no planets anymore, so there were only eight planets.
Then in 1930 Pluto was discovered, so we had nine planets. In 2005 Eris was discovered, and the same discussion started as back in the 1850s: There are obviously much more objects in a belt beyond Neptune. Should they all be planets? And so the International Astronomers Union made a ne definition for planet, and Pluto didn't fullfill it. So we had again eight planets.
And like back then with Uranus, the motion of the known planets indicates that there is another big object out there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I've been treated with homeopathic medicine all my live, and as you can see, I'M ALIVE AND WELL"
Who says, that homeopathic medicne is bad for you? It just as no effect. So you probably would also be alive and well, if you would not have taken it.
"Plants have been used for milenia to cure people"
Yes, but what does that has to do with homeopathy? That are two complete different things, that has nothing to do with each other. Yes, many mother tinctures in homeopathy are plants, but they don't have to. They can also be animals or minerals. For examples bees (yes, bees are killed and stamped for "apis mellifica"), mecury (yes, the high toxic liquid metal, sold as "mercurius solubilis") or dog shit (I am not kidding, there are or at least were "excrementum caninum" globuli). Homeopathy doesn't mean, that you have a headache, you eat a plant that curses headaches. Instead it means, that you take a plant that CAUSES headaches, then dilute it so strong as long as there are not leftovers of the plant in it at all, an then take a little part of that dilution. How does that make sense??? And what does that have to do woth "Plants can cure people"?
"while modern medicine appeared roughly 200 years ago "
And that makes is bad? How is "it is old" a good thing when it comes to science? If you really have a dangourous illness, would you prefer to go to doctor with the knowledge of somebody 1000 years ago, or to a modern hospital?
"Would rather treat myself with what the panet gave us than inject led into my body..."
And you think that there are only these two options? You make the same mistake like many other fans of homeopathy. If some medicne in not healthy for you or has bad side effects, then it is just an argument against this medicne, but not for homeopathy. Just because the pharma industry and many doctors are evil, ist doesn'tr mean the homeopathy makes sense. Many homepathy users seem to have the need to take pills. They cannot accept, when a doctor says "Just take care of you, it will get better with the time".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"but what if there is a god?"
Then we still have no idea what this God wants. So how is it relevant? There are people who live a Christian way (so follow Christian morals), "just to be sure", although they don't really believe in God. The problem is: What if muslims were right? But even that doesn't makes it easy: Should I listen to the moderate muslims or do Jihadists? So why should people be "safe" just because they are "religious"? What if God is actually so benevolent as many religious people claim, and welcome everybody in heaven, so also the atheists? What if Christians go to hell but Muslims go to heaven? What if it is the otherway around? What if it all was a test by God and only the atheists go to heaven, because he wants to reward people who thinks for themselves instead of blindly following religious leaders or old books? What if there are several Gods and they are more similar to the ancient Greek Gods?
These arguments just don't make sense. First of all, you cannot choose to believe something. Period. I can just pretend it - but that doesn't help me in afterlife, because God would know that. And let's say I don't believe in God, but I am afraid that I could be wrong and that afterlife will be horrible when I live wrong now. What would you recomment me? How should I live my life to be safe?
And the is the same with your arguments about the univese, and that it cannot be an accident etc. Even if I follow that argument it just brings me to a form of deism. So even if I believe that there has to be a creator, I still don't know what he wants. I still would say, that the bible and the quran are just books that were written by people who also believed in that creator and just made up what this creator wants from us. So if a Christian come to me with these arguments and he convinced me - why should that make me a Christian? It just makes me believing in a creator. If a Muslim come to me with these arguments and he convinced me - why should that make me a Muslim? It just makes me believing in a creator.
1
-
Nice video, but I have to be nitpicky here: Although you explain that "Horsepower" is the unit for "Power" you still mix it up several times. Also in the title. Let's better be correct here ;-) So it has to be "POWER vs TORQUE" or "HORSEPOWER vs POUNDFEET"
However, all that shows why metrics (or let's better say: SI-units) are just better. In Germany people still use "Horsepower" ("Pferdestärke"= "PS") when it comes to cars because they are used to it - although SI-Unit are mandatory. So car companies use both on there websites or brochures: PS and kW (kiloWatt).
Using (Kilo)Watts makes much more sense than horsepower, because you already see the connection between "Energy" and "Power" (that you describe in the video) already when you just look at the units. When we have an electric car with a battery that can storage 50 kWh of energy and motor that can produce a power 100kW, then we know (let's ignore efficency here) that after driving half an hour on full throttle the battery will be empty. Try that when you only know, how much horsepower you car has! And already the unit kWh shows that energy is the product of Power (in kW) and time (in h). Or the otherway around: When you charge you car at at charging station with 50 kW, it will take one hour to fully charge a 50kWh battery.
Another energy unit is calories. One calory is the amount of energy that is needed to heat one 1g of water by 1 °C. LOL, nonsense! So instead we should use Joule (J), that is also printed on food. And no, Joule is NOT just another random unit, instead one Joule is one Wattsecond (1 J = 1 Ws). Now that makes sense! You see also here, that "energy" is "power x time". You even can compare the amount of energy that is storaged in the battery of an electric care with the energy that is storaged in a candy bar :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"hier einfach auf möglichst viel Reichweite geachtet. "
Eigentlich eher auf möglichst niedrigen Verbrauch, was absolut zu begrüßen ist.
"auch die Übersichtlichkeit stellt sicher eine Katastrophe dar. "
ja, wahrscheinlich, aber ist die bei irgendeinem aktuellen Auto wirklich gut? Übrigens sind Rückfahrkameras bei Neuen Autos in den USA mittlerweile gesetzlich vorgeschrieben, kommt hier wahrscheinlich auch irgendwann...
"Was erhofft sich MB von diesem Konzept? "
Zeigen, was möglich ist und wohin die Reise geht. Das extreme Setzen auf niedrigen cw-Wert führt natürlich konkret bei diesem Auto zu einem schlechten Verhältnis von Länge zu Raumangebot, und es wird wohl auch kein Serienauto mit genau einer solchen Karossiere kommen. Aber es kann ja dennoch was in die Serie übernommen werden z.B. die aktive Aerodynamik, die dann eben nur auf der Autobahn den cw-Wert senkt (Mit dem "Concept IAA" hatten sie schonmal eine Studie vorgestellt, die das Heck verlängeren konnte um den cw-Wert zu senken). Auch beim Antriebsstrang hat man einiges optimiert und angeblich 95 % Wirkungsgrad von der Batterie zu den Rädern realisiert, davon kann man auch was in künftige Serienautos übernehmen. Oder die Batterietechnik, die bei gleicher Kapazität deutlicher kleiner und leichter ist als in den aktuellen Serienautos
Zu ähnlicher Zeit, als Mercedes den EQXX vorstellete, präsentierte BMW dieses ungetüm hier:
https://www.bmw-m.com/de/alle-modelle/uebersicht-m-und-m-performance/bmw-concept-xm/2022/bmw-concept-xm.html
Optisch fast schon eine Parodie auf die Entwicklung bei BMW. Und natürlich noch mehr PS, noch mehr Newtonmeter, noch fetter, als alles bisher dagewesene... Während Mercedes stattdessen ein Auto unter dem Slogan "Effeciency is the ne luxury" präsentierte.
Wenn der EQXX auch nur halbwegs für das Steht, was Mercedes in Zukunft wichtig is, dann ist das ein SEHR wichtiges Konzept und definitiv nicht einfach nur ein Spielplatz für Mitarbeiter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Transparency! "
What do you miss? Everything is well documented, the transparency is there.
" It's no surprise NASA hasn't returned to the moon in decades, take a guess why."
First of all money. The budget was massively cut. And there people on moon six times, should they just keep on going and going forever? For what? Instead they focused on other stuff. So for example bringing people and stuff into LEO cheap and often, so they developed the Space Shutte. An incredible machine, did 135 flights. It brought up the Hubble telescope, that gave us amazing discoveries about our universe. It built the International Space Station, the biggest man made object in space ever, constantly habitaed for 20 years. And don't forget the incredible unmanned projects. NASA has sent probes to all planets, and some moons and asteroids. We had rovers and a helicopter on Mars. We have clear photos of Pluot, imagine that! The Voyager probes has left the solar system! The James Webb Telescope again shows us more about the universe. Actually all these these unmanned missions are well more worth the money than spending immense amount of money for bringing people to the moon.
"Only LOW earth orbit to fill all their pockets with dirty money. "
Yes, for human space flight we only were in low earth orbit. So?
"Elon Musk apparently wants to go well beyond LEO but it's seems aerospace companies don't want to share NASA taxpayer dollars with Mr. Musk so they try suing Mr. Musk, that didn't work so they pressured the Gov. FAA and Fish-Wildlife to foul up and delay and cost Mr. Musk from running his lawful business, SpaceX. "
Wow, have you even any idea about these things? NASA works well together wis SpaceX. SpaceX have the only non-russian vehicle to bring astronauts to the ISS. So the official NASA flights to the ISS are done by SpaceX (who actually have a more or less monopoly meanwhile to bring stuff into orbit).
And NASA is working oin going to the moon, the first flight of the Artemis program already was in November 2022, when the orion capsule flew around the moon. The next flight will have the same profile, but with astronauts in it. And they don't have an own lander this time, but need the private companies for that. And SpaceX will deliver the lander.
" Corruption runs deep in Government and corporations, "
Well, I don't want to disagree on that. However, the Apollo missions were real and people walked on the moon.
1
-
"auf dem Anschluß am Smartphone oder Tablet zu!"
USB-C wurde u.a. eingeführt, damit diese Unterscheidung (USB-A am Host, USB-B am Client) aufgehoben wird und man nur eines hat. Ich schreibe das gerade ein einem drei jahre alten MacBook, welches ausschließlich USB-C-Anschlüsse hat.
"Die Kabel haben am Ende, welches in den Charger kommt, seit Jahren schon eine USB-A Buchse!"
Aber auch nur, weil die Hersteller sich entschließen ein Charger mit USB-A-Buchse bei Ihren Smartphones mitzuliefern. Fragt sich wirklich: Warum eigentlich? Wahrscheinlich weil die noch billig in den lagern rumliegen. Es gibt auch Geräte die ganz ohne Kabel und Netzteil geliefert werden. Was gar nicht so verkehrt ist, der Sinn bei USB ist ja gerade, dass das so universell ist, und ich für mein Samsung Handy kein spezielles Samsung netzteil oder Samungs LAdekabel brauche.
" Tja, welchen Anschluß hat denn gängiges Camping-Zubehör?"
tatsächlich hat der Ioniq ja auch eine 230V Steckdose unter der Rücksitzbank.
"Wie viele Smartphone-Hersteller bieten denn Bereits USB-C am Netzteil an? "
Mein Google Pixel 2 (seit Ende 2017 auf dem Markt) wurde mit USB-C Netzteil und USB-C auf USB-C Kabel geliefert. Vorher hatte ich ein Handy mit Mini-USB. Ich hatte also nur diverse USB-A auf USB-Mini Kabel zuhause, und mit dem neuen Handy dann ein USB-C auf USB-C Kabel. Ich musste mir dann aber (für andere Anwendungen, z.B. wenn ich das Handy an meine ältere Powerbank oder ein Notebook anschließen wollte) noch ein USB-A auf USB-C Kabel kaufen, weil sowas hatte ich eben nicht im Haus.
"Sehr fragwürdig die Kritik des Moderators."
Sagen wir mal so: andere Autos haben USB-C. Ansonsten finde ich das aber auch nicht so erwähnenswert und dramatisch wie es hier der Moderator tut.
"Die gängigen Ladekabel, die ich in meinem Haushalt für Elektrogeräte, Navis, usw. haben, sind an einem Ende Lightning, micro-USB oder USB-C. Am anderen Ende jedoch alle USB-A." Siehe oben, USB-A auf USB-C musste ich extra kaufen. Apple ist ja massiv vorgeprescht damals: Wie gesagt hat mein MacBook vier USB-C Buchsen, aber gar keine USB-A-Buchse (auch kein HDMI, Displayport oder Netzteil-Anschluss - denn auch das läuft alles über die USB-C Buchsen). Das finde ich auch übertrieben, trotzdem finde ich könnte man USB-C etwas mehr pushen. Umweltfreundlich wäre es, dass man nicht jedem Handy Netzteil und Kabel beilegt, weil man die oft eh schon zuhause rumfliegen hat (Fairphone macht das z.B. bewusst so). Wenn man dann aber dem USB-C-Telefon unbedingt wieder Netzteil und Kabel beilegt, dann verstehe ich wirklich nicht, warum da die meisten immer noch USB-A-Netteil und USB-A auf USB-C Kabel belegen.
Wie gesagt hat z.B. mein Macbook auch keinen speziellen Ladeanschluss, sondern wird auch per USB-C geladen. Das Lenovo-Macbook von meiner Schwester auch. USB-C hat nämlich den Vorteil, dass darüber mehr Strom gehen kann als über USB-A. Wenn also ein Auto eine USB-C Buchse hat (und diese auch mit hoher Stromversorgung beschaltet ist), dann könnte ich im Auto nicht nur mein Handy direkt laden, sondern auch mein Notebook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"und im ankündigen ist Deutschland schon immer gut...nur nicht beim liefern eben nicht!"
Ich verstehe nicht, warum man das immer hört. Mercedes kündigt hier doch gar nichts an. Das ist ein Prototyp, und keiner behauptet, dass genau dieses Auto überhaupt je geliefert wird. Kaufen kann man aber z.B. EQS und EQE - wurden die viel später geliefert als angekündigt?
Der wahre Ankündigungsweltmeister ist Tesla. Wo bleiben Roadster, Semi und Cybertruck? Die tun bei der Präsentation jeweils so, als wenn es die schon quasi in Serie geben würde und viele Fans plappern das nach ("Fastest production car ever made" - LOL, wo bitte ist der Roadster ein "Production car"? Und die haben das im Novemver 2017 gesagt!) Was ist mit dem vollautonomen fahren, wo Käufer schon lange Geld dicken Aufpreis für bezahlen, weil das dann ja irgendwann kommt (seit wievielen Jahren wird die vollautonome Tesla-Fahrt durch die USA angekündigt?) Das Model 3 wurde dick als 35,000 Dollar Auto präsentiert, und genau diese Version kam dann erst später, dann irgendwann gar nicht mehr. Oder ganz krass: Model S Plaid+. Der stand schon auf der Website und man konnte ihn vorbestellen - und dann wurde er einfach so komplett gestrichen. Übrigens mit dem Kommentar, dass ja eigentlich keiner mehr als die Reichweite des normalen Plaid brauche. Während man 2017 beim Roadster noch stolz erzählt hat, dass man damit von LA nach San Franscisco hin- und zurück mit einer Akkuladung fahren kann. In der Disziplin "Was interssiert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern" war Tesla auch immer gut.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shaunmacready701
"Some people are super healthy and drop dead. Some people eat anything and everything and live long."
Doesn't make much sense to point out the exceptions and ignoring the statistics.
" but healthy eating is way more expensive than eating poorly. "
What? Probably it depends on where you live, but for me it doesn't make much sense. And at least here in Germany it is a lie.
How is "water" more expensive than any drink that contains sugar (they all also are mainly water, plus some extra stuff that can be unhealthy, so it makes no sense that they are more expensive in the first place)? How is "eating no candy and snacks" more expensive than "eating candy and snacks"?
" Idk sometimes these heslth companies telling you be healthier is better while they fill their pockets."
Companies? Maybe here is the problem. If eating food means "I buy a coloured box in a super market" and eating healthy means "I buy a coloured box that says 'healthy!' on it in a super market" then you probably have the problem, that eating healthy is more expensive. Just buy actual food, not industrial products.
"Think logically the water isn't exactly safe these days.."
Are you talking about tap water? Then ir depends of course from where you live. But when you buy a drink from a beverage company, that sells, water, coke, etc, then why should the water be less safe than the coke? I mean, it is the same water like in the coke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You would have us believing that we are on a globe earth rotating at approx 1100 MPH "
I always wonder why flat earthers uses this number. Is there any other situation, where you would describe the rotation speed of an object with the radial speed? So can you tell me with how many MPH yout washing machine, the engine in your car or you cooling fan spins? No, you would always use RPM. Revolutions per minute. Earth needs 24 hours for one rotation. That is extremly slow, I would not even call it "spinning".
"and yet we cannot feel any movement at all what so ever .. "
As filix1 said, you cannot feel linear movement. You cannot even measur absolute speed - how should that work? You deny Newtonian Mechanics. So please, go back to the 127th century and get rid of all inventions since then. Because all the machines work as the work and could be constructed because of Newtons laws of motion.
"Why didn't it continue to rotate once we left the earth"
It does continue rotating. That is the reason why the earth doesn't spin under it.
"and how did we fly straight & level at 37,000 ft shouldn't we have flown out into space ?"
Why should it fly into space, when the pilots just define, that it should stay on 37,000 feet (manually or by programming the autopilot)? But besides that, when it keeps on flying with the same speed, it would not fly into space. Because the aerdoynamic uplift depends on the speed and the air density. With lower air density you need higher speed for the same uplift. So because of that an airplane will at least more or less stay in the same altitude. It would go down, when the air gets thinner.
But talking of flights: Do you think that all airlines and all pilots are part of the conspiracy? Because the flight times matches with the distances, that you measure on the globe. Can you show me a flat earth map where it makes sense, that the flight Sydney-Los Angeles takes longer than Sydney-Snatiago de Chile?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because inside it the only thing where something happens. What do you expect to see outside? Why should this be even fake? This is in development for 20 years, there were already many flights before, but now it is "open to the public", have you even tried to google for one minute? It is just a small aircaft, brought up by a big one to 15 km, starts the rocket engine, goes straight up, stops the engine, keeps on going because of its momentum before it finally falls down. That's it. What is so special about it? The competitor Blue Origin with its "New Shepard " rocket made already 22 flights since 2015, six with people in it, you can book a flight on their website.
You guys really should stop being triggered when you read "space". There is nothing special about space! We just call an arbitrary altitude space (btw. this flight only reached the US definiton for "space", and not the most used international definiton). What if you have not seen this video but just read about it, and in that text they would never used the term "space" but just 89 km? Would you also assume that it is fake?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ade-ade It is weird how people actually think that Tesla will destroy the market. When I now want to buy a compact car I can choose between a VW Golf, Audi A3, Seat Leon, Mercedes A-class, BMW 1 series, Ford Focus, Opel Astra, Peugeot 308, Renault Megane, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Hyundai i30, kia cee'd... and more. And although here in German the Golf is by far the most popular and also often wins most test, all these others exist and people buy them. So why do people think that in the future there will be only one car company? That doesn't make any sense.
Oh, and most people are not so childish and buy a car because of their 0-60 figure or drag race result. Not even when it comes to sport cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
" people are finding out NASA's so called pictures of earth are fake CGI's (computer generated images) not real photographs,"
They just claim, that they found it out. But they have no evidence, that they are all fake.
"NASA even admits it,"
No, they don't. Probably you also just mean that ONE quote of a ONE NASA emplyoee abou photo shopping pictures of earth, And you have no idea of what he meant, how digital cameras work, and what "photoshop" could mean. And of which photos he was talking.
"there is hundreds of proofs proving the earth is flat and motionless not a ball spinning a thousand miles an hour faster than the speed of sound"
No, there is not one proof. But you can just observe a sunset at the sea to know, that it can't be flat.
"that's why it's called a planet, it's a flat plane.
No, it comes from greek and means something like "wandering". Actually I think it comes from a time where people still thought the earth is in the center, so they would not even call earth itself a planet. They observed the stars, and they saw that some stars are not fixed at the sky but change their positions with time. And so they call these special stars "planets"
" if the earth is a globe /Ball how can the people who live in Australia and south Africa and south America that are suppose to be upside down"
They are not "upside down". There is not up and down in the universe. But talking about South Africa, South America and Australia: Can you show me a flat earth map where it makes sense, that a flight Sydney-Santiago de Chile takes only 12h20min, Sao Paulo-Johannesburg only 8h50min, and Johannesburg-Perth only 9h15min? While Sydney-Dallas takes 15h20min or Fankrfurt-Tokyo 11h15min?
" then how can a mosquito and a bird not be held down by gravity,"
Of course they are hold by gravity. Or have you ever seen a dead mosqito or bird hovering in mid air?
"sounds like gravity is pretty selective,"
There are strong and weak magnets. Do you think "magnetic force" is selective? And you can surpass magnetic force when you just work against it. And so can birds surpass gravity by flapping their wings. And of course gravity depends on the mass of the object. It is basic experience as a child, that bigger objects with higher mass are stronger pulled to the ground than smaller objects.
"and if the earth is spinning at 1000mph as conventional science teaches"
Erastotenes measured the diameter of the earth surprisingly accurate already in 200BC by measuring shadows at diferrent place. And night and day exist, because the earth make one rotation within 24 hours. With that dat you can calculate that it is about 1000mph at the equator (but only there, of course).
"how can an airplane wich fly's about 250mph flying from London to new York ever reach its destination. The airplane would have to double the 1000 miles per hour to even come close to reaching new York"
Bullshit. have you ever been inside of a plane that flies with 500mph? With your logic, you would never reach the bathroom if it is at the front of the plane and you are sitting in the back. Because you would need run with more than 500mph to even get one bit forward.
"take your camera and zoom in and you can see the ship"
Have you done this by yourself? And have you ever try to zoom into the sun after sunset? According to your theory, you should see the sun also after sunset, when you just zoom in.
"plus the fact that all of NASA's pics of earth are fake CGI's (computer generated images)"
No, it is not a fact. You just claim that, without any evidence. It is even worse: You just heard that in some "NASA is lying to us" youtube video and just believed it, without any own research. And without use your brain. Becuase then you would at least say, that they are CGI or paintings. Because there was no CGI in 1972. And why are you talking about only NASA? Thre is for example the japanse weather satellite Himawari 8, that sends i live image every ten minutes:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
"not real photos that's why you never see stars in the background, "
You don't see stars because of the limited dynamic range of cameras. And do you really think, that they have such an advanced technology to fake this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
But then they "forget" the stars? Even SciFi-B-Movies from the 50s show stars!
"as technology increases it's harder to lie to us "
Correct. So we can see more and more by ourselfs that they are correct. Hundreds years ago you need to just believe more things. But meanwhile the techology gets better and cheaper so more and more "normal people" can do things, that before only rich people, or scientists could do. For example flights are cheap. Good telescopes are cheap.
"because the helio centric model says we are not the center of all things to disprove god and spirituality"
I am quite sure, that 5 years ago, you were not a flat earther, but already a Christian. So probably you did not have a problem with believing in God and believing in a globe. Like 99.99999999% of all Christians now and in the last centuries did not have a problem with it. And if this "ist not the center of the earth" argument ist mostz importand, then why aren't you a geocentrical sphere believer (like probably most people in the western middle ages before Copernicus/Galilei).
1
-
1
-
@jimthomas777 Wow, Jim, please, hold on. I am not a flat earther! I am not a creationist! I am occupy myself with flat earthers for more than a year, had many discussions, know much about their world view. I had tons of discussions with these idiots. I fight against any form of anti-science bullshit! So you are talking to the wrong person. But some of your arguments don't work, for example: " if earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs are millions of years old then how would flat-earthers explain that ?" Nobody, who claims, that the earth is young, also claims, that dinosaurs are millions of years old. Why should anybody do that? They deny, that dinosaurs are millions of years old in the same way as they deny that the earth is billions of years old. And again, that is not just a flat earther thing (which is a very new, special and small group). But there are many youn-earth-reationists especially in the USA. There is even a "creation museum" in Kentucky, that shows dinosaurs coexisting next to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (and they are all vergetarians, of cause; the became predetaors after the fall of man...).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" just know that real science proves it is not a globe."
Wrong, everthing proves that it is a globe.
"Not sure how your not getting that we can’t make a flat/paper map from an imaginary fairytale globe map?"
But we can make a "map" of the earth and by that we will see, that it has to be a sphere.
" I am not saying I believe in the flat earth maps but if they are true they explain why some trips Take ignorant flight paths to get to places because that isn’t the true path their taking."
There are no strange flight trips. Instead, all flight times matches with the distances that we measure on the globe. Can we assume that airlines try to take the shortest connection between two cities? If yes, than the earth is a sphere. It is that simple. There is no flat earth map where it makes sense, that a flight Sydney-Santiago takes about the same time as Tokyo-Atlanta. But it makes complete sense on the globe, because there the distances are similar. And nobody is prevented from travelling the earth to find it out for yourselfl. Thousnads of people, airlines, logistic companies, private travellers,... uses the official maps everday, and obviously they work. Nobody has found problems with it. They need correct maps, because they need to know, how long a trip will take, how much fuel they need etc.
"Please explain to me why we can see the bottom of things all over the world that we shouldn’t even be able to see the top if their was a curvature to the earth. "
That is wrong. We can disuss about the actual curvature in such situations, but that depends on two many things. It is funny that this guy wants to prove the earth is flat with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK849eOmOM
He says, that at that distance you would not see the wind turbines at all. But he seems to ignore, that you only see the top of them, while the bottom is cut off.
"Also how do planes, submarines rail road tracks not have to adjust for the curvature "
How do you know, that they don't have to?
You fell for too man arguments of the flat earthers, that are just wrong or doesn't really matter. And like the flat earthers you ignore the simple thing, that we have travelled the earth, and THAT is the reason, why we know, how it looks like. Do you also believe the lies of them, that it ios not allowed to go to Antarctica and that there are no flights across it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are very clever people on the Earth who assert that the solar system consists of twelve planets, whereby the Sun and the Earth's Moon are also counted as planets. "
What does that has to do with "clever"? It is just a question of defition what you call a planet and what not. And such definitions are man made, and cannot be right or wrong. Bur I don't see any definition where only earth's moon is a planet, but not the other moons.
"And since until now only the nine planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are known"
Wrong. Much more are known. In 1850 we had 13 planets. But as more and more objects were found between Mars and Jupiter, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea were downgraded to "asteroids". And in 2005 Eris as Makemake were discovered, so more planets beyond Neptune. That was the reason why Pluto was downgraded. Again, we know thousands of objects in the solar system. We just don't call all of them "planets".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Maricarmjolo Yes, it is a weak force. Between two small objects you don't notice it, because it is so weak. But it depends on the mass. And you just observe that. Gravitation is not some made up theory, it is just the result of what we OBSERVE, in our every day life. An object with a mass of 1kg is pulled to the ground with a force of about 9.8 N. An object with a mass of 2kg is pulled to the ground with about 19.6 N. That is a simple FACT. You can MEASURE that. And you simply feel, that and object with a bigger mass is pulled to the ground with a higher force. Gravity is a model, that works. We can use it. It describes reality.
But the problem is, that you don't trust your own senses and common sense. Instead you were indoctrinated by bullshit videos on youtube, that claim, that gravity doesn't exist, instead it is all about "buoyancy and density". And you blindly believe it, without thinking for yourself.
So please tell me, without using gravity: can you please calculate for me after which time a certain objects hits the ground when it is dropped and with which speed it hits the ground? And can you please construct a roller coaster, so calculate all the G-forces that are working on the passanger and on the construction? Because you obviously are smarter than engineers, who uses these physical laws successfully since 300 years. Just stop using your computer. Our all technological progress is based on physics, that you deny.
1
-
"And it's especially so for Porsche"
Actually especially for Porsche it makes sense. Because for Porsche, the name "turbo" already has lost its original meaning for a while, so already before the Taycan, since more or less all Porsches have turbochargers meanhwile. There is Panamera 4, Panamera 4S, Panamera 4 e-hybird, Panamera GTS, Panamera turbo, Panamera turbo S e-hybrid. Can you tell me a technical reason, why only the two top models uses the name "turbo"? Do you think that the usage of a turbocharger is the difference? No. It is just the power. The GTS even have the same engine as the turbo, just with less power. "Turbo" is just the name for the most powerful version (or the second if there is a "turbo S").
When you see that there is "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera Turbo", then the only thing that you get from the name is, that the turbo has more power. But the name doesn't tell you WHY it has more power (both have turbochargers; actually the 4S has a V6 and the Turbo a V8). And it is exactly the same for the Taycan. They just use the same name scheme for all their cars. So when there is a "Taycan 4S", a "Taycan Turbo" and a "Taycan Turbo S" you know what to expect and the meaning of the names when you are familiar with the Porsche name scheme.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When you look into the Porsche line up, then it is absolutly logical, because it means the same as for the others: It is the most powerful version. Since a while ALL Porsches have turbochargers. So you there is a Panamera 4, a Panamera 4S, a Panamera 4 e-hybird, a Panamera GTS,a Panamera turbo and a Panamera turbo S e-hybrid. Do you think that the turbocharger is the reaoson why the two top versions uses that name? No, as I said, they all have turbochargers. Actually the GTS hs the same engine as the turbo, just with less horse power.
When there is a "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera turbo", which information do you get by the name? Any technical information? No. You just know, that the "turbo" has more horsepower, but you have no idea, why it has more horsepower. Actually the 4S has a V6 and the turbo has a V8. And when you have a "Taycan 4S" and a "Taycan Turbo", then it is exactly the same: You know that the turbo has more horsepower, but you don't know why it has more horsepower. And you know that it has four wheel drive, because that is also what "turbo" means at Porsche. And if there is a "Turbo S" then it has even more power and also e.g. Ceramic breaks. And 4S means, that it is four wheel drive and already not the weakest version. So probably there will be a cheaper "Taycan 4" (so without the S) in the future which will be the weakest version. And maybe even a "Taycan" or "Taycan S" with RWD instead of AWD.
1
-
It is strange that you don't ask for people, cars or airplanes - but for satellites. Why do you think they are in a distance where you would see them in this video? There are only a few thousands, that is not much when you spread them around the entire earth. They are over New Mexico - you expect to see satellites that are over California, Maine, Canada, Brazil, Europe, Africa, China, Australia...? And they reached an altitude of 89 km. The record for the lowest satellite ever was 124 km. The ISS is a low satellite and is 400 km high, most satellites are higher. Iridium satellites for example (a phone system) are 780 km high, GPS satellites are 22,000 km away from earth (yes, twenty-two-thousand kilometers) and geoestationary satellites (for example for TV) are more than 35,000 km away from earth.
1
-
1
-
There are the following versions of the Panamera:
1) 3.0 litre V6, turbocharger, 330 HP
2) 2.9 litre V6, bi-turbocharger, 440 HP
3) 2.9 litre V6, bi-turbocharger, additional electric motor, 462 HP
4) 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharger, 460 HP
5) 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharger, 550 HP
6) 4.0 litre V8, bi-turbocharger, additional electric motor, 680 HP
Can you tell me why Porsche puts the "turbo" name only on number 5 and number 6? I tell you why: They are the top of the line models. That is what "turbo" stands for at Porsche. You don't know anything about the technical differences between the Panamera 4S, the Panamera GTS and the Panamera turbo when you look at the name. "Turbo" just means "more power". So they just keep the name scheme for the Taycan, and everybody knows what to expect when you see "Taycan 4S", "Taycan turbo" and "Taycan turbo S"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Maybe Leftists should stop trying to play God with the environment. "
Oh, only the leftists? Burning big amount of fossil fuels leads to an increase of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So it changes the composition of the atmosphere. Facts. That is not "playing God with the environment"?
".plant life exists because of C02...plants produce O2."
Yes, of course. So? Do you think that scientists who say, that climate change is a problem, don't know that?
"Idiots, methane an essential gas for life. "
What is so hard to understand that the amount of something is the problem? Oxygen is essential for us to live. We breathe it, we would die without it. But we would have huge problem if the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere would double (the amount of CO2 nearly doubled in the last 100 years). UV light from the sun is necessary for our bodies to produce Vitamine D, but if we would not have an ozone layer we would have too much UV and burn our skins and get cancer. Vitamin A is necessary for the function of light-sensitive nerve cells in the eye’s retina and thus helps maintain night vision. It also helps keep the skin and the lining of the lungs, intestine, and urinary tract healthy and protects against infections. But consuming too much vitamin A causes hair loss, cracked lips, dry skin, weakened bones, headaches, elevations of blood calcium levels, and an uncommon disorder characterized by increased pressure within the skull called idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
And also the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (and CO2 and methane play an important role for that ) is absolute necessary for us and for the life on earth. Without it, it would be much too cold on earth (and the temperature would change to much between day and night). But you really don't understand, that amplifying that greenhouse effect can cause problems?
Just because something is absolute necessary for us, doesn't mean that more of it is a good thing!
Nobody says that CO2 or Methane are "evil" and should be eradicated. "Leftist" just want that the composition of the atmosphere doesn't change. Or want to get back to the composition of the atmosphere before the industrialization, so before Human changed the environment. So it is weird that you say, that they are the ones who play God with the environment. Instead they say we should stop playing God with the environment (so we should stop changing the composition of the atmosphere).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leemallinson9268
"You don't know its true you just believe its true "
Nonsense. I know the physical laws are true, because they work. We experience it all the time in you everyday life. You don't have to believe scientists, but engineers. Every engineer who designs cars, airplanes, roller coasters,... will tell you, that an astronaut on a spacewalk will not feel the 17000 mph. By using the same laws that they use to design cars, airplanes, roller coasters... YOU have to explain why they should feel it. Why don't you just calculate the force that they experience when they move with 17,000 mph at an altitude of 250 miles? Come on, show me the cal
" if you want to believe that they are moving 17000mph that's upto you."
There is no reason why they should not. It all adds up. The burden of proof is on you when you claim, that they don't. So I don't "believe" it. I know that it is true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"und wieviel von dem Gezeigten sind kostenpflichtige Extras, und auf wieviel kommt der konkrete Testwagen damit"
Ist ja kein Deutsches Auto, da wird das also die Diskrepanz zwischen "Einstiegspreis" und "gut ausgetstatter Testwagen" hoffentlich nicht ganz so groß sein ;-)
"Wobei, abgeregelt bei 185, das ist ein no-go. "
Krass, was manche für Ansprüche an ein Auto haben. Ich denke mal das selbst in Deutschland, den meisten das egal ist. Und wir reden hier jha nicht von einer abriegelung auf 130 , sondern immerhin 185. Ich kenne auch einige, die deutlich gegen ein Templolimit sind, aber auch die sehen eher 160 als entspannte Reisegeschwindigkeit an. Der verbrauch steigt ja eh enorm, also lange am Stücke würdest du wohl eh kaum mit über 200 fahren. Was aber wieder heißt, dass man da kaum Zeitgewinn hat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For Porsche, the name "turbo" already has lost its original meaning for a while, so already before the Taycan, since more or less all Porsches have turbochargers meanhwile. There is Panamera 4, Panamera 4S, Panamera 4 e-hybird, Panamera GTS, Panamera turbo, Panamera turbo S e-hybrid. Can you tell me a technical reason, why only the two top models uses the name "turbo"? Do you think that the usage of a turbocharger is the difference? No. It is just the power. The GTS even has the same engine as the turbo, just with less power. "Turbo" is just the name for the most powerful version (or the second if there is a "turbo S").
When you see that there is "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera Turbo", then the only thing that you get from the name is, that the turbo has more power. But the name doesn't tell you WHY it has more power (both have turbochargers; actually the 4S has a V6 and the Turbo a V8). And it is exactly the same for the Taycan. They just use the same name scheme for all their cars. So when there is a "Taycan 4S", a "Taycan Turbo" and a "Taycan Turbo S" you know what to expect and the meaning of the names when you are familiar with the Porsche name scheme.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mr11ESSE111
"where did you see on other cars that peoples can sleep or doing something else and car can drive all way by itself"
Mercedes drive pilot should also do that. The point is, that neither Tesla nor Mercedes allow to do that, because it is still defined as Level 2. So both have systems that alarms you, when you don't have your hands at the steering wheel for a longer time. Tesla was infamous for giving its driver more freedom and so just claimed, that they systems are better. But at the moment we cannot even say whats the actual possibilites are of none of these systems. And Audi was the first one who claims to offer level 3 for slow speeds on highways in their current A8, but I think it is still not unlocked due to regulations.
I think it is quite unserious how Tesla offered the option to full self driving for much money since years, so they promise some things about the future, and people buy it. While at the same time many engineers left Tesla because they could not take the responsibilty for that overachieving promises concerning FSD and said, that Tesla plays with the life of their customers.
I have the iompression that you really are just parroting Tesla fanboy stuff, when it comes to the autopilot. Or have you really compared it with the other systems or at least read/watch comparisons on the internet?
" after all Porsche is slower again vs Tesla S and nurburgring time of porsche are garbage !!"
Porsche is faster from 0 to 260 than Tesla. And if you think the Nurburgring time of the Porsche is garbage, then what about Teslas? Their claimed better time was made with a plaid prototype and not official.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"LO EARTH ORBIT "
No, it is NOT orbit. It os ONLY space .Orbit means, that you fly around the earth with 17500 mph, and so you don't fall down. You need a much bigger rocket for that. And that only works in space, so it doesn't make sense to say, that something is in low earth orbit, but not in space. The ISS for example is in low earth orbit, it flies around the earth with 17500 mph at an altitude of about 250 miles. But this here is a suborbital flight, it only goes straight up, and reaches only 53 miles before it falls down.
"150 MILES NOT SPACE"
The US definition for the beginning of space is 50 miles, and so according to that it is space. The most used definiton is 62 miles, at that altitude the necessary speed to get aerodynamic uplift becomes as high as orbital speed.
"E THE HAVE 4850 MILES TO GO UNTILL SPACE"
Who says that? I could understand to include the thermosphere in the atmosphere (and actually the ISS loses alitude all the time because of the drag), but everything above is pointless.
" IT SEAMS TO ME THAT SMART PEPOLE LIKE AT NASSA WOULD YOUSE BETTER TERMANOLAGY "
So how would you define "space"? And don't be a gullible sheep, who has just hear in some youtube video that LEO is not space and that space begins at 4850 miles. So instead what are the conditions that you require so that something is in space?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dc48664 Every electric car uses a buffer to protect the battery. So you have to compare the capacity that is actually used. The Taycan has a 93.4 kWh package, but only uses 83.7 kWh. The Tesla has a 102.4kWh package but uses 98.4 kWh. And of course the Model S has a WLTP rating, otherwise it could not be sold in Europe. Just change the country on the Tesla-Websites to a European country and the range numbers are WLTP, and not EPA anymore.
And concerning the price: It is a Porsche, and they obviously don't care about the Tesla prices, they just take the other Porsches as a reference:
Taycan 4S: $ 103,800 (0-100 in 4.0 s)
Panamera 4S: $ 105,000 (0-100 in 4.4 s)
911 Carrera 4S: $ 120,600 (0-100 in 3.6 s)
Taycan Turbo: $ 150,900 (0-100 in 3.2 s)
Panamera Turbo: $ 153,000 (0-100 in 3.8 s)
911 Turbo: $ 161,800 (0-100 in < 3.4 [current model not out yet])
Taycan Turbo S: $ 185,000 (0-100 in 2.8 s)
Panamera Turbo S: $ 187,000 (0-100 in 3.4 s)
911 Turbo S: $ 190,700 (0-100 in < 3.1 s [current model not out yet])
The Taycan is like a mixture of the Panamera and the 911: On the one hand it is a four door sedan like the Panamera. On the other hand it is smaller and reviews say that it drives more like a 911 than a Panamera, so more like a sportscar. The accelerations are on 911 level or even better (the 0-100 acceleration of the Taycan Turbo S is exactlay the same as the 911 GT2RS, Porsches absolute top of the line model, that costs $ 293,200 and holds the record for the fastest street legal car on the Nurburgring). But it is still the cheapest of the three! So you can say the Taycan is a Porsche bargain :-)The main reason for the high prices are the upcharges for extras. For the example the "Turbo S" has the cermaic breaks included, that costs $ 5500 etra for the "Turbo" (it is the same for other Porsches).
So when you see that list, the prices are absolutly reasonable and you see where they come from. Oh, and talking about "How stupid, why do they call an electric car turbo!!!": When you see the list you also see where the naming comes from.
People should realize, that Porsche didn't want to build a Tesla competitor or an electric car. They wanted to build a Porsche. And all people who drove the Taycan say: They nailed it. And so they gave it the name like the other Porsches and the price like the other Porsches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't understand why he uses stupid examples ("What does the Avalanche has to do with avalanches?"), instead he could use actual arguments, so focus on the Porsche name schemes. Because especially it is Porsche where the name turbo already has lost its original meaning, so long before the Taycan. More or less all Porsches have turbochargers today.
You think that the difference between a "Panamera 4S" and a "Panamera Turbo" is, that the latter one has a turbocharger? Wrong, it just has more horsepower, the "turbo" badge doesn't tell you the technical reason for the additional horsepower. You think that the difference between a "Taycan 4S" and a "Taycan Turbo" is, that the latter one has a turbocharger? Wrong, it just has more horsepower, the "turbo" badge doesn't tell you the techical reason for the additional horsepower. So it is the same.
Some people say it is like false advertising, and you don't get what you expected. Wrong, it is the opposite. When you know the Porsche name scheme, then you get exactly what you expect and you can classify the badges "4S", "turbo" and "turbo S". I mean, it is an electric car, so why the hell should it have a turbocharger?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Im no expert "
Then better listen to the expert, instead to random guys on youtube. 😉
"because we cant go through the radiation belt."
A typical "argument" that moon landing deniers come up with (and of course they all just parrot it, they don't do research about it, they don't think about it,...) And it makes no sense. Yes, there are region with higher radiationa around the earth, they are called "Van-Allen-Belt", named after the guy who discovered it. What makes this argument so stupid: How do these guys even know that the radiation belt exist in the first place? Have they sent up their own probes to measure it? No! So instead they believe NASA when they say, that there are these radiation belts around the earth, but they don't believe NASA, when the say that you can fly through it. That doesn't make any sense. It only would make sense when there are contradictions. So when you take all the official data about the Van Allen Belts, all the official data about the flight path of the Apollo spacecraft, the shielding of the spacecraft, and then calculate how high the radiation dose would have been on the astronauts. And sho that they are deadly. But no of these deniers could show that.
"The longer i live the more that seems to be true.."
That would be sad. The problem is that more and more bullshit is spread on social media. And people consume that, but don't just look into the actual information about the Apollo missions (which are all public, it is documented in high detail).
1
-
By the party. They made lists (which are public of course) and then the seats are staffed from the top to the list down to the bottom. So the higher somebody is on the list, the more likely he is to go into the Bundestag.
But actually that is only half the truth, it is more complex. So the founders of our system thought that it still makes sense to vote for a certain candidate that represents your area (like it is in may other countries). So you actually you have two votes: the first one for a candidate and the second one for a party. The candidate in the first vote can also be independent and doesn't have to be member of a party, and he gets the seat in any case, if he gets the most votes in his area (like in many other countries)
But:
a) There are only half as much voting areas (and so only direct candidates) than seats in the Bundestag
b) at the end still the percentage that the party gets in the second vote counts
So that means, that the candidate of the first vote definitly gets a seat in the Bundestag, but it doesn't influence the distribution of the party. So let's say that a party gets 100 seats according to the second vote, and in 70 voting areas the direct candidate of this party also wins the first vote. Then the first 70 of the 100 seats are staffed with the direct candidates, and the rest 30 seats are filled according to the lists that I mentioned at the beginning.
But that leads to a problem that becomes bigger since the more parties come into the parliament. In the past most people either voted for SPD or CDU/CSU (so the big "left" and the big "right" party), and some for the FDP. For the first vote usually only the big parties have a chance to win. Meanwhile the "big parties" are not that big anymore and there are several parties in the parliament. But for the first vote the direct candiate with the most votes gets the seat, no matter if he wins with 70 % of the votes or with 30% of the votes. That means that the The big parties still get all the direct seats, although they don't get so many seats according to the second vote. So let's say form my former example a party still wins 70 direct candidates from the first vote, but only 60 seats according to the distribution based on the second vote. The solution: We increas the parliament... So all 70 direct candidates get their seat, but the other parties get more seats, so that at the end the distribution of the seats again fits to the second vote. To stop the increase of the Bundestag decided for a reform, so that not all direct candidate has the guarantee to get into the parliament, but only when they go enough seats according to the second vote. That is very controversial among some parties who see that as unfair, I am not sure if it wll stay that way.
Seems complicated? Yes. And I am sure that also many of my German fellas don't understand it. And don't exactly know what the first and the second vote mean. Most people just vote for the party anyway, with both votes. And actually if the direct candidate in your area is quite famous in the party, then he is also usually on the top of the list, so he doesn't need the direct vote to get into the Bundestag. And I also always wonder where is even the point in the first vote. We don't have this strong connection to "our candidate", so that represents my area. Most don't even know their name, they don't really care. I sometimes think you can make a split like: "I vote for the SPD and don't like the CDU, so the second vote goes to the SPD. But the CDU candidate in my area is a nice and humble guy, so I vote for him, because then at least I can influence that the seats of the CDU are staffed with good CDU-guys".
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree that the Avalanche analogy doesn't fit, but the "Turbo" fits to your examples. Do you think that when you buy a "Panamera turbo" you get the version whose special feature is the turbocharger? Wrong! Also the "Panamera" (so the entry level model without a "turbo" in its name) has a turbocharger. You think when you drive a "911 turbo" you can say to a "911 Carrera" driver that you have the version with the turbocharger? Not really, because the "911 Carerra" also have a turbocharger. More or less all Porsche have turbochargers these days! So "turbo" is just the name for the powerfull version, and doesn't say much about the technology that is used.
" the Honda Odyssey “Elite”. that I know is the highest-end Odyssey."
Exactly! And when you buy a "Taycan Turbo S" you know that you have the highest-end Taycan. Porsche offers:
- Macan, Macan S, Macan Turbo
- Cayenne, Cayenne S, Cayenne Turbo, Cayenne Turbo S
- Panamera, Panamera 4, Panamera 4S, Panemara Turbo,...
- 911 Carrera, 911 Carrera 4, 911 Carrera 4S, 911 Turbo, 911 Turbo S
They all have turbochargers! And so we have
- Taycan 4S, Taycan Turbo, Taycan Turbo S
Oh, and the "4" means four wheel drive, and the "S" also is the sportier version. So maybe there will be even cheaper versions of the Taycan without the "4" and without the "S". It all makes sense, and in knowledge of the Porsche naming scheme, everbody knows what the different versions of the Taycan means, because it is the same (and it means the same) as for the other Porsches.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
- There is a "Panamera 4S", a "Panamera GTS" a "Panamera turbo". The name "turbo" just tells you that it is the most powerful version, it has nothing do with the turbocharger (because all versions have a turbocharger)
- There is a "Macan", "Macan S" and "Macan turbo". The name "turbo" just tells you that it is the most powerful version, it has nothing do with the turbocharger (because all versions have a turbocharger)
- There is a "911 Carrera 4" , "911 Carrera 4S", "911 turbo", a "911 turbo S". The name "turbo" just tells you that it is the most powerful version, it has nothing do with the turbocharger (because all versions have a turbocharger)
- There is a "Taycan 4S", a "Taycan turbo", a "Taycan turbo S". The name "turbo" just tells you that it is the most powerful version, it has nothing do with the turbocharger (because no versions has a turbocharger)
So the name scheme makes sense and you know what you get.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebird4668
Oh, nice to learn that I was raised Pagan. When did catholics become Pagan? So you think before Luther and other reformists in the 16th century there were no Christian people at all? Because they were all Catholic back then. However, it is just weird to hear that people think believing in big bang and believing in a creation is a contradiction. What if that guy was not a catholic priest, but a protestant priest (who also believe in big bang, at least here in Europe people believe in science)? Or just a guy who believes in God who created the universe?
So if a scientists discovered something that can be testified by everybody else (that is how science work), you would suddenly start to be sceptic about it, after you learn that the scientists was a catholic? Oh, BTW, it actually would not even matter if that scientist was a free mason, satanists, murderer, notoric liar,... It doesn't change the observation he made.
We can observe that the universe is expanding. We assume that physical laws were and are always the same. It makes sense that the universe always was expanding. But that means there was a moment in the past, when the entire universe (and don't think of the matter of the universe, but the universe itself) was all together in one point. "Big Bang" does NOT describe an explosion of matter inside of time and space. Instead it just describes the beginning of the expanding of the universe. The beginning of time and space. The moment of creation. Because also scientists don't know what was "before". Actually the question is wrong, because "before" doesn't make much sense. Because it was also the beginning of time.
It is interesting that you say you love science, but then in some points you suddenly ignore the scientific method. So you love to explore nature, but at one point you stop to exploring it? I wonder if you even have looked into the Big Bang theory, so for example read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It doesn't really matter what I say because I haven't make those observations and calculations. But I believe in common sense and in the scientific method. I haven't measured the altitude of the Mount Everest. So it does not make sense to ask me "What do you think how high Mount Everest is?" I believe the scientists in that case who say, that it is 8848 meters high. So why should my opinion matters when it comes to the age, development or origin of the universe, if I haven't made any more deeper observations, calculations etc.? Science is not about opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody decided, that the sky is blue. Nobody decided, that the days in the winter are shorter. Nobody decided that water boils at 100° C. And nobody decided, that the earth is a sphere. And people came to that conclusion already more than 2000 years ago. You just have to observe a sunset. The sun keeps its size and its speed, it sets as a full circle. That only works on a spherical earth.
But we also can do it the other way around. Let's say, we don't know, which shape the earth has. We just want to make a map. So we travel around. So for exampel we have a boat that has a certain speed. And we travel along the antarctic ice wall. When we come back to the point where we have startet, we know how long that ice wall is, because we know how fast our boat is and how long we have travelled. And together with all the land mass, that we have measured, we now try to make a map. And we will see: We HAVE to make the map threedimensional. It only works, when we make it on the surface of the sphere. And meanwhile it is easy and we have planes.
So actually it is not even important if the people centuries ago actually knew what they did. Maybe the "proofs" of the people in ancient Greece were no proofs. Maybe somebody centuries ago just claimed that the earth is a sphere, without any proof, and we just believed it. But then he accidently was correct.
1
-
"there is no proof that the earth moves or is anything other than a plane"
I have give you proof several times and you just ignore it. You don't even try to explain, why you think these are no proofs. So you are not interested in a debate.
While you don't have any proof, that the earth is flat.
And I ask you again: Give me a proof that the official maps are wrong and show me a correct map instead. Even if I have never thought about any proofs of a globe and only believe it, because I was told so, I can just use it and it works. When I live in Sydney and want to know, if it was faster if I fly to Dallas or to Santiago, then I can just take a globe of the shelf and check it out. Without going to the internet or asking at a travellers office. And it will be correct. No you come and say: "The globe is wrong, you cannot do that!" and then I say "well, I don't know, at least in this case it works. Do you have a better map?" And you say "No". Or mabye you even show me the AE map. But accoding to that, the Dallas is closer than Santiago. So the map is obviously wrong. Why should I take you serious?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also from Germany: "turbo" already hast lost its original meaning before they Taycan. Can you tell me why only the "Panamera turbo" and the "Panamera turbo S e-hybrid" uses the "turbo" name? Why not the 4, the 4S, the 4 e-Hybrid and the GTS, who also all have turbochargers? Actually the GTS and the turbo have the same engine, the turbo just has more power. I tell you why: The turbos S is the top of the line model, the turbo the second under it. That's it. Oh, and I think tubor always means "four wheel drive". That is what "turbo" stands for in the Porsche line up. When you read "Taycan 4S, "Taycan Turbo", "Taycan Turbo S", you know what you get.
And it is funny, that you think that Porsche would keep all its traditions. There was a time where people couldn't imagine a watercooled 911. There was a time where people couldn't imagie a turbocharged 911 Carrera. And 997 "targa" was not a Targa, but just had a big sunroof. For me, Porsches just say that they mean it serious with the Taycan: It is a real Porsche, that is integrated in the Porsche line up, and shows, that they can transport the Porsche DNA into the electric future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The ritual was a ‘prank’? "
Yes. When a group of students do something like that on the Campus of a university, would you also say that the entire University does some satanic stuff?
" One of the highest guarded and secure places on earth "
Where do you got that weird idea from? It is funded by public money, everything is open, transparent... thousands of people work there, universities work together with it, people make their PhD there, students from high school an internship.... Have you gone through their website for example? There is also a particle collider in Hamburg, German. I made my school internship at a university in Germany in the physics department, who made experiments with the collider. It is just nerd stuff, not glamourous. When did people start with the weird conspiracy theories about it? I really don't get it.
"who did the ritual, who gave the ok for them to do it on the property and most importantly why did they do it?"
There is a wikipedia article "CERN ritual hoax". Quote from there (with sources, so you can also follow them":
A CERN spokesperson stated that the video was a prank and that no one was actually harmed.[3] CERN stated in its FAQ that the video was "fiction" and the actions were outside its professional guidelines and without any official permission.[4] CERN stated that it "doesn't tolerate this kind of spoof" and that it can "give rise to misunderstandings about the scientific nature of our work"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I knew that the situation in the USA is different than in Europe, so that in the USA the supercharger network is a much bigger advantage. But I didn't know that is THAT different that you even say, that the Porsche uses the Electrify America Networks. Really? That is like saying "Samsung smartphones uses the Samsung plugs" instad of saying "Samsung smartphones uses USB". The Porsche uses CCS, which is a standard, It is THAT standard, used by all other car makers besides Tesla in America and Europe. In East Asia they decided to use Chademo, and I guess also in the USA is still more relevant than CCS? In Europe Chademo will die out, only Nissan has still Chademo on the Leaf. But also the other asian companies sell the European version of their cars with CCS, they have accepted that it is the standard here. It is also a recommendation by the EU that CCS has to be pushed, and in Germany it is even a law that public DC chargers have to offer at least also CCS (and not only Chademo for example). That brought up the situation, that the Teslas superchargers in Germany had to be declared as private...
And actually Tesla has also accepted it and switched to CCS here. The European Model 3 now also has a CCS plug, and not the supercharger Plug anymore. That means, that Tesla also has to convert all their European superchargers, they all get a second cable with a CCS plug instead of the former supercharger Plug. Otherwise European Model 3 could not charge at Tesla superchargers... But that also means, that in Europe Teslas still have an advantge concerning the network. Because they can use all the CCS chargers out there (and there are many, so also with a Taycan you can travel easily here) but additionaly the superchargers. Technically a European Taycan can charge at a European Tesla supercharger, but Tesla doesn't allowed it by Software. And although "Ionity" here is similar to what "Electrify America" is in the USA (it is probably the biggest company that builds a network and is owned by the big german car companies), it is just one of many. So there are CCS chargers run by other companies. Also the oil companies start to build CCS chargers at their gas stations.
Oh, and in Europe also the AC-charger is standardized, and that even by law for the automakers. So every electric car has to use a Type2-Plug for chargers. So since the beginning the European Model S had the same plug for AC-charging as an VW e-Golf or a BMW i3...
I also am for free market and don't think that the goverment should force things too much. But when it comes to standards like charging, I am glad that in Europe the car makers don't come up with all their own propriatairy stuff...
1
-
"yea they cannot take an actual full photo of the earth."
Of course "they" (btw, who is that?) can do it. The japanese weather satellite Himawari 8 sends a live photo of the earth every ten minutes:
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himawari_8
" they all are composited all together."
Why do you say that? Oh, I know: You have seen that in a "NASA is lying!!" Youtube video and then you blindly believe it without doing any reserach. "But a NASA employe who makes the photshop said it!!" have you really understand what he said? He was talking about a certain picture, that actually was made by single photos from lower satellites, who xan see only a small part of the earth.
" don’t believe in the flat earth but i do think lot of it makes sense. "
No, it absolutly makes no sense. Have you ever watched a sunset at the beach? Cannot be explained on a flat earth. people travel the earth since centuries. So they made maps, who get more exact with the time. Thousands of people use the official maps every day. Successefully. So you think that all maps are wrong, but nobody have noticed it yet? You really think that we are not able to find out the distance between two cities and that the "elites" prevents us from doing so? Why should all the privat companies that runs satellites as a regual business should lie about them? Why should Iridium claim that their phone system works with satellites, when it doesn't? That is just a simple part. Nothing makes sense on a flat earth
" but i’m open up to new ideas and i love learning ab this stuff"
That is a good thing, but then please learn about physics, geology, space travel,...
1
-
1
-
It is just a small rocket powered aircraft, that flies straight up, stops the engine, keeps on going because of its momentum, but then falls down. There were many flights before, this is in development for 20 years, now there will be more public flights. It is just a tourist attraction. I just don't get why people are sceptical about it. And no, it is not because I am gullible and believe everything. I also "believe", that the Concorde actually was a thing, that it actually flew with 2200 km/h at 18 km, although I never flew with it and don't know anybody who did. Does that mean that I just blindly believe what British Airways and Air France tell me? No, what a ridiculous idea.
I guess people gets triggerd by the word "space", I think we should get rid of it, it doesn't mean anything and only leads to the misconception that it is something special. It is not. We call an arbitrary altitude the beginning of space (and the vehicle in the video did not even pass the most used definiton, but only the US definition...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nice car but the Mercedes EQC seems better in every way."
Really? You seem like the first one who says so. The EQC has a slower AC charging, a slower DC charging, a smaller battery, less range, no frunk, charging port only one side, no flat floor in the back (the EQC has a transmissiontunnel in the middle like in an ICE car),...
Don't get me wrong, there is enough room for several cars, and if you would prefer the Mercedes becasue of the exterior or interior design, then it is fine. And of course we don't have all information yet, so we have to wait until both cars are on the market for an actual comparison. But at this point and from n neutral point of view, I really cannot understand, how somebody can say that the EQC "seems better in every way".
1
-
1
-
"If they always said the earth was flat then suddenly said it was round we need to find the exact date this was said and see if anything happened around that date that would make the powers that be want everyone to think it is round and not believe it is flat...."
Who is "they"? There was no moment. People just observed the world they live in and thought about it. And some developed models and thought about how it all works. And already in ancient greece more than 2000 years ago people come to the idea, that it is probably a sphere. Actually watching a sunset already tells you that. And people just travel around, for centuries. They discovred to islands, continents and created maps. So over the time we get a better and better idea of how the earth looks like.
"..I'm torn what to believe as I've seen hours of footage and evidence from both sides...."
Please, don't think this is about "believing". Do you also "believe" in Australia? If there are people who claim, that Australia doesn't exist (or take here some other countrywhere you never have been to and maybe you don't know anybody who was there), that it is all a lie, pictures and videos from there are CGI, people who claimed to be there are paid actors etc. Would you really see "Australia exists" and "Australia doesn't exist" as two option, where you think about which one you should "believe"?
And no, there is no evidence for a flat earth. The basic state is "we don't know". And then we try to find out how the earth looks like. People have done that for centuries. And that brought us to the model of the earth and the universe, that we have today.
"They are just quoting what they have learnt at school or from books and what they show on the t.v.."
Like you only know that Australia exists because they say it in school and on TV? Sorry, but that is bullshit. It is really sad when you only "believe" in a glob earth because you have learned it in school .
".in reality only a tiny few people know the truth on this"
We talk about the shape of the earth here! Not some secret stuff! If you really consider that the official knowledge about the shape of the eart could not be correct, then you believe that millions of people are idiots and liars. You believe in an unbelievable conspiracy, where so many people are part of. Airlines, logistc companies, travellers ... all maps would be wrong! You really think we cannot find out the actual distance between two cities? Really? And nobody ever had noticed that the distances on the offical maps are wrong? I don't even know where to start...
1
-
1
-
"First of all 53 miles is not outer space, it is low earth orbit."
That makes no sense. Do you even know what "orbit" means? It means that you fly around the earth so fast, that you fall around it, without getting closer to the ground. It has nothing to do with the altitude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRdYPMpqQs
And it only works in space, because only there you don't have drag, so only there you keep the speed.
"Space" just means that you are outside the atmosphere, so beyond a certain altitude (US definition: higher than 50 miles; most used definition: 62 miles, of course all arbitary, the atmosphere becomes thinner fluently). So reaches "space" is easy. When you want to go into orbit you have to be in space PLUS you accelerate sideways up to about 170000 mph. So reaching low earth orbit is a much bigger challenge than just reaching space.
"An amateur rocket struck the firmament at 73 miles. "
Oh my God, are you gullible. So you have this video of this amateur rocket, that suddenly stops to spin. A normal smart person would look up what happens there (spoiler: It is a mechanism called yoyo de-spin). You can do some research, and for example also get in contact with the people that build the rocket. And what do you do? You see the video where somebody took thatfootage of the rocket and calls it "rocket hist the dome" - und you just believe it like a sheep! Although it is even complete against common sense. The rocket does NOT stop to go up, it just stops spinning. It doesn't hit anything, that clearly would look different.
"You can't go to outer space. "
Of course you can.
"why is this such a big deal since we did this in the 60's already."
Well, I agree here. The only big deal is that a private company build something so that rich people can to it for only 250000 $. But there were even tourists flights to the ISS (seven private people did it), so even orbit, and not only a sub-orbital hop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1