How do we know if this is even real?

we know it's real insofar as we can see it and measure different wavelengths of radiation that changes over time, so it's all moving and changing
but this also all may be a simulation for all we know, so if isn't real we aren't either

>>935819608
Can you see it with your home telescope?

>>935819653
the bigger the telescope you use and the further you get away from light pollution of the city the more you can see

>>935819608
When you believe the lies which the jews tell you, that creates the simulated reality in your head.

>>935819653
is our own galaxy that covers the sky at night fake? that you don't need any telescope to see?

>>935819884
That doesn't answer my question.

>>935819904
>da jooz
worthless thread

>>935819915
That's not what I'm asking.

>>935819445 (OP)
80% of those are copy/pasted.

>>935819936
>cries about thread being worthless
>intentionally bumps the thread

>>935819961
>80% of those are copy/pasted.
You mean the Hubble Deep Field images? I'm NOT saying "space is fake" as some posters have implied.

>>935819445 (OP)
well: option 1:
You can look up and see some bright stars.
you then go and look through a $100 telescope and its able to look at a small area of that view and resolve the basic blurry shapes of the Andromeda galaxy, and resolve the same individual distant stars.
your local $10million observatory with a telescope the size of a truck can image the exact same view, and suddenly can pick out details and some structure in the exact same galaxy area, and spots more of the fainter little stars
your $1.5 billion dollar mega-structure telescope on top of a mountain in the Atacama desert can then resolve the exact same view, and starts spotting all the little distant galaxies in the background, as little blurry parts.
and then you blow 10+ billion-dollars on a space telescope sitting at a lagrange point, and bingo, you're seeing all those galaxies which are impossible to see by the naked eye.


OR:
Option 2: the earth is flat, and its all a CONSPIRACY by Nasa to hide the shape of the world, and the moon landings were "CGI" (in 1969, when the most advanced CGI in the world was able to draw a stick-man...) and its all in fact not real.

If you take option 2, you're a fucking moron.

the plain, simple fact is, yes, it is real.
The only part which is not 100% definitely real, is explanations or models of some of the little details of how those galaxies formed or similar stuff, because the explanations are based on available data, and each time a new, better, bigger telescope is invented, we can see more detail, and discover that often what had been assumed about something wasn't in fact correct.
what does not happen is modern scientists getting a new telescope and go "oh, that entire galaxy doesn't exist"
You occasionally got that sort of radical re-evaluation of objects in the past, when the biggest telescopes in the world were smaller than that 10 million dollar observatory. But as technology has improved, that becomes increasingly unlikely to happen.

I've been looking at the moon with my binoculars and I can't see the American flag no where not even on the highest setting, therefore the moon landing was a hoax

>>935819445 (OP)
what you are looking at is so far away from your imagination capacity. the sizes literally hurt your entire imagination a thousand times.

>>935821268

>>935819445 (OP)
It’s “real” but we can’t get there. That one of the big secrets

>>935822505
and just to break their minds. not only can we not get there, we cant get then.

>>935819445 (OP)
Stupid idiot, I can easily see the deep field with my unaided eyes. This proves OP is a fucking retard.

>>935822670
It's neither here nor there.

>>935819445 (OP)
This looks like whats happening to Israel's night skies right now

>>935822505
How do you figure that's a secret? It is common knowledge we don't have space ships that can travel faster than the speed of light. Have you taken a bunch of drugs today or something?

>>935823926
You can’t get off this rock. Can’t get to moon. Can’t leave.
No iss. No satalites. Ect.
Stop being willfully obtuse

>>935824018
>You can’t get off this rock. Can’t get to moon. Can’t leave.
>No iss. No satalites. Ect.

>>935824018
Stop being willfully obese.

>>935820955
fag

>>935821268

You understand that the moon is almost 300,000 miles away from the earth right? Your Walmart binoculars are not going to pick up a small flag almost 300k miles away.

>>935824101
>>935824018

Meanwhile, here's a fucking redditor's photo with a 10-inch telescope (something that costs $500-1000) capturing the ISS crossing in front of the moon. Congratulations, mr "no satalites", you're lower down the totem pole of intellect than a reddit poster.

There are multiple websites which will tell you where, and what time to look to see satellites in orbit. If you really want you can do the calculations yourself from published orbital data, and work out when to see the ISS overhead as a bright spot of light.

people who deny basic facts of reality like claiming the ISS doesn't exist are some of the most brain-damaged, ignorant, pitiful morons on the entire planet.

>>935819445 (OP)
You can choose to believe what NASA tells you, or not. The choice is yours.

>>935819445 (OP)
it's not it's an hologram

>>935824168
My, what a convincing, thought-provoking, and fact-filled counter-argument you present.
You have certainly convinced me with this deep and meaningful reply...

>>935824581
Type up another faggy paragraph, faggy fag fag

>>935819608
each subsequent layer further down the simulation doesn't necessarily have to have the same fidelity of the layers above.
Our simulation, while it might seem incomprehensibly complex and "impossible to have been achieved" to us, may very well be run on the computing equivalent of a toaster by someone else.
We very well could be some kid's science project at.

>>935824439
Congratulations!!
You shamed me into changing my mind, no new information just ad hominem and appeals to authority.
There are so many things—if you just ask one extra question…
Could satellites be balloons?
What does nasa use all that helium for?
Why can you see the “iss” un aided? That should be impossible given its stated size and altitude.
IMPOSSIBLE.
Also what is causing it to be lit up?
Maybe don’t believe ever single thing you hear.
And I don’t know who that Redditor is, if maybe some astroturfed account…

>>935824581
>My, what a convincing, thought-provoking, and fact-filled counter-argument you present.
>You have certainly convinced me with this deep and meaningful reply...

>>935824785
just like in any other situation where you are asked to believe something that your brain can't fully prove yet (a miracle, faith, etc

then, entering the beautiful and huge castle, Johannes Kepler said to Tycho Brahe:
-what a strange nose you have

>>935819445 (OP)
Have faith.

>>935819445 (OP)
Just buy a telescope you fucking retard!! You can look up the coordinates and look them up als othey dont look like that color wise its just to make it visible form a distance but they pretty much match the color representing in the pic. We just cant see it from a colse up. Just like eurth you cant see that its blue from far wtf stupid

>>935824439

Flat earthers are some of the most stubborn people on the planet. You could quite literally take them up into space to see the earth with their own eyes and they will either accuse nasa of hacking their eyes, or close their eyes, plug their ears and go "lalalalala I'm not listening!"

No amount of facts or evidence will ever change their minds. They aren't flat earthers because they care about actual facts or evidence.

>>935825503
more like fart earthers

>>935824965
ok, I'll answer you.

>Could satellites be balloons?
no. firstly, because balloons do not move fast enough to circumnavigate the planet every 90-ish minutes.
secondly because balloons have a maximum practical altitude due to the fact that their lift functions via volume and density - as the atmosphere gets thinner the higher up, the less lift a balloon can produce. and thus, the maximum altitude ever reached by a helium balloon is only 53km or 33 miles,
and thirdly, because we can calculate the altitude of satellitess by manual observation from multiple points using basic trigonometry, or, since we live in the 21st century, by using radar - which is used to track thousands of objects in orbits from 100km up to about 26,000km above the earth.

>What does nasa use all that helium for?
well, some is used for the launch of weather balloons, etc. a lot is used as liquid helium for the cooling of ultra-sensitive equipment, where background ambient temperature of equipment would otherwise blind the sensors - sort of like trying to take a photo of an object while its lit up with searchlights, and wondering why your picture is overexposed.

>Why can you see the “iss” un aided? That should be impossible given its stated size and altitude. IMPOSSIBLE.
>Also what is causing it to be lit up?

With the naked eye you cant see the ISS as an object.
But you can see the ISS (and other satellites) at night. What's causing it to be lit up? The sun.
What you can see is the reflection of the sun's light off great big glassy solar panels, or polished metal parts. This is also why the best time for seeing satellites is either just after sunset, or just before sunrise - when the object is in sunlight, and we're in relative darkness. When they go into the shadow of the earth, you cant see them.

there's your answers.

>>935819445 (OP)
I have seen Andromeda with my own eyes through a telescope that was only about a 1 foot mirror.
I trust that a telescope with an 8 foot mirror that has no atmosphere to fight through and years worth of time to point into the void can see a hundred more galaxies.

>>935825693
Do you take photos of space? Post em

>>935825503
oh, I know.

A lot of Flerfers have a form of Oppositional Defiance Disorder - a mental health condition where they have to be contrarian to society. it gets combined with things like conspiratorial thinking - "everyone else is part of a a conspiracy ("its the jeeeeews..." etc.) but I know the SECRET TRUTH", etc etc. there's some really fascinating psychology behind it, though its quite sad too.

Of course, there's the grifters, who exploit them - they're in it just for the money. That guy who died in a steam-powered rocket launch a few years ago was that kind - he didn't believe the earth was flat. he just wanted to build crazy machines for fun, and the flerfers were happy to give him their money because he promised to "prove the earth was flat"

and then you get the ones who are just scientifically illiterate, and don't understand.

I kind of enjoy explaining stuff to them sometimes. I work in academia in a field of history, but I'm often having to explain complex stuff about society and its interactions with military history, and its really good for learning how to present information to people with no contextual understanding of reality, because they've been brought up on "game of thrones" and "braveheart" and shit like that.

>>935819445 (OP)
It's all real, but it wants nothing to do with kike nigger apes.

>>935825940
I'm just a huge nerd for space. I'm actually a DOT worker, but in my free time I watch a lot of content on the subject of space. I can talk for hours about black holes. Those are the things that got me into the subject back when I was a kid and I have a plethora of knowledge on them. Most of the games I play when I'm not at work involve space too.

Some autistic middle aged men like trains. I like space.

>>935826219
have you heard about "kitten space programme"? - its being developed by rocketwerkz, a NZ company run by Dean hall, the game dev behind the original DayZ mod, and "stationeers".

plan is for a highly moddable, next-gen spiritual successor to Kerbal Space Programme, but without Take Two's mismanagement. the company has not only hired PhD physicists and former spaceX staff for getting the orbital mechanics right, but they've got Felipe Falanghe, AKA HarvesteR, the original dev for KSP1, and a whole load of former KSP modders and KSP2 staff, like Chirs Adderly "Nertea" who made all the "near future" KSP mods, and Blackrack, who did graphics mods like Scatterer.

its looking like it might become something really interesting in a year or two.

>>935826518
I actually haven't heard of that, but it's definitely going on the wishlist.

>>935824462
>You can choose to believe what NASA tells you, or not.
What do you believe, man?

>>935827014
likewise. KSP1's getting a little antiquated, so a next-gen successor will be pretty impressive.

Art style is still quite unknown, but with Nertea in the team, I think it gives us some idea, and what I'm hearing is they want it to be so moddable that not only are parts and the likes easily added, but entire solar systems should be possible. they're already talking about SDKs for modders and the likes, so I can see it having a life as long as Kerbal's if they do it right.

they have a pretty good discord that the devs and CEO are active on, with preview videos of content for how they're making the engine - its all done in a custom framework called "BRUTAL", with a Vulkan graphics API designed for this game from ground up. so no fucking Unity krakens and wobbly joints, with some luck...

>>935827285
That sounds downright awesome.

>>935829505
given I started playing Kerbal on version 0.17. the public alphas, I'm pretty confident its got the potential.

kittens is evil though. who's going to want to leave kittens abandoned on an alien moon with no catnip?

>>935819919
you can answer it yourself you dimwit.

>>935830794
Yes of course, the average person can afford a personal telescope that rivals Hubble

>>935830422

Probably Russians.

>>935830422

Probably Russians. They launched all sorts of animals and then just kinda told them "good luck lol"

>>935831174
They did the same thing with their cosmonauts.

>>935830924
no, but the average person can afford a $100 telescope, and they can afford a $10 ticket to visit a local observatory.

and once you've seen the evidence that those can provide imaging beyond what your eyes can give, then you can start by reading things like scientific journals, actually understanding how science like "peer review" works, and then start looking at the imaging which is produced by things like Hubble, and made available.

And since you'll have then become sufficiently scientifically literate to understand the process of the imaging being provided, you can then, if you are still a swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist, cross-reference provided data from sources you have been able to use for empirical evidence with your own eyes, and extrapolate from the provided data and see correlations in the data which dismisses the idea that the Hubble content is faked.


This is, in fact, how we as a species have managed to develop everything you take for granted in society. Instead of going "hurr. Grog tell fake story of sabertooth in cave. Grog shill for Big Rock. I go look in cave, prove Big Rock all liars". (before being eaten by a big cat.)

>>935831174
I don't Laika this comment.