Leaderboard

I saw the movie and enjoyed it. Personally, I think real politicians would have fared worse in a similar crisis. Humanity is facing a climate change crisis. All the politicians have done is raise taxes on CO2 emissions, which has only hit ordinary people in the pockets.. Any reason to raise taxes is good for politicians, all kinds of politicians.. People who have less money in their pockets are less likely to buy expensive electric cars, install renewable power generators, upgrade their homes to zero emission, etc. etc. Which causes people to turn away, to become discouraged, to start fighting change because it affects them personally.. If a crisis similar to the one depicted in the movie were to happen for real, we can expect to see taxes raised..

I think you're spot on with this. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't opine. Here's an updated version of it, very relevant today, which you may consider taking into account:

If I could explain it too you, I'd have a career... 😉

your actual question here is Unfortunately the answer here is that nobody really knows. It is empircal. That is appears to be an observed fact in the face of the unavailability of alternative hypotheses that do not contradict other existing observations. Read my last sentence very carefully because alternative and accepted hypotheses have been overturned in the past on the basis that they predicted something that does not happen by observation. The most spectacular such overturning is probably the discovery of oxygen when it was held that if a substance burned it lost something (which seemed very reasonable at the time), but when all the products of combustion were first collected and weighed their weight was always found to exceed the original substance weight so in fact the only tenable hypothesis was that the substance gained (combined) with something unknown.

Perhaps watch the film for yourself, instead of letting others make conclusions for you.

The “plane” has an extent of several degrees, which is much, much larger than any geometry introduced by GR. There is no contradiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observations_and_theories ! Moderator Note The approach of “I don’t understand GR, therefore it is wrong” is fatally flawed. There are two options: 1. Present evidence to support your claims, and an alternate model if you are proposing an alternative 2. Ask questions to fix your knowledge deficiencies What you can’t do is merely assert that mainstream physics is wrong. Not here, at least.

Ah, I see. Sure. The definition of "space being curved" is that its geometry is not Euclidean. The curvature in Euclidean geometry is 0.

I know this is a tangent, but I think you are wrong. You are the product of a specific egg and sperm. The time you were born is the ONLY time you could have been born in history.

That seems rather ambiguous/inexact, as there are no other civilizations for comparison. One could argue that we are not fully 'civilized', and may be at the 0.01 % of our civilization lifespan. One could also make the argument that intelligence will have an effect on civilization lifespan, for better or for worse. It may mke our civilization last forever, even expanding to other star systems, or, it may lead to our early demise. You need a definition of 'civilization' and 'intelligence', for comparison purposes; and there are none for comparison to. Statistical analysis with too many unknowns, such as with the Fermi Paradox, usually lead to invalid conclusions.

I'm trying to understand it myself so this may not be correct but the descriptions I've seen make it sound like this to me. When the moon orbits the earth it is because the 'force' of gravity is in the center of the orbit. Similar to how a ball connected to a string will swing around in a circle. With a satellite around a Lagrange point, it is more similar to the way a roulette ball stays in a circle around the center of a roulette wheel since the wall around the roulette wheel contains the ball. It doesn't take much force to keep a ball circling a roulette wheel; the wall does most of the work and you just just need to add small pulse of force occasionally. Keeping a satellite exactly at the Lagrange point is compared to keeping a ball balanced on top of your head; it constantly wants to drift one way or the other.

! Moderator Note Trying to be cute instead of following the rules is not a winning play. You were asked for a model and evidence, you failed to provide any. Don’t bring this subject up again.

Nothing but words '''is not a logical and mathematical explanation to real reasoning :

Angels do exist and are for service of the lord the promblem has been our eyes we believe everything we see with our eyes is real but we know that infrared vision, x-ray vision, and other visions exist and they see the supernatural. Surely if we saw angels back in those days with advance technology we will see they aura and see they have more features and see their real nature. Perhaps the eyes are more than we think they are ? Or the faces of cherubs are different minds and not one sole being ? Or The Hayat Ha Kadosh are Archangels are the leading head of the heirarchy of tha angels and A lot misconception to their nature denies us the truth. For some scholars the truth is that they and thier war against demons is not our business we must not stand in the way. The truth will come and humans with science will shows that they exist and their is documented footage of men that go into small building that go in and A light appears and they vanish. Some say that they were footage that was altered but some say they were angels. That are among us, others say they were greys, demons posing as angels, or another paranormal activity. Hebrews 13:2 KJV Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. There are varied species of angels and perhaps there are more than we know about ? Also A Happy New Year to you all !!! Ninja feel you are new ? Haven't seen seen you before the short time i've been here by the way already checked the other users.

The first two explained Einsteins theory of gravity using Newton's law of universal attraction. Why didnt they use Einsteins theory ? Because they comprehend it, or because they dont comprehend it ? And only comprehend Newton instead ? And you comprehend it ? If so, then can you make a calculation of the orbit of planets Jupiter and Saturn around the sun using Einsteins General Relativity gravity equations, and prove that they orbit in the same plane ? Not Newton, Einstein !!! And for the Matrix guy: Einsteins theory literally says that space is curved by mass and that this curvature of space is causing matter to move in an circular/eliptical path and light to bend as it passes through that space. This actual curvature of space is what in his and the mainstream opinion causes the light of stars to be bend near the sun (gravitational lensing), and the planets to orbit around the sun.

If the space in our solar system is curved by the sun's mass, and planets orbit on said curvature of space-time, then how is it possible that the planets orbit in the same plane ? Which is flat. If Einsteins theory is correct, then no such flat plane should exist in our solar system. And the planets orbits should be on a curved space instead of a flat space, with their orbits stacked one on top the other as they fall deeper and deeper in the 'curvature of space-time'. Like in the illustration below where I added two more orbits to see how they stack up (the original only had one, and I cannot for the life of me find an illustration of GR with more than one planet/orbit)

Its not, they are actually observed to be in the same plane. This contradicts the aberration that gravity is caused by a curvature of space-time and planets orbit on the curved space. As does the flat geometry of the universe in general. There is nothing curved or bent. You are not getting the point, Einstein. This is exactly where Einsteins theory is applicable in our solar system, and it is exactly where it fails to explain the orbits off all the planets, which are all in the same flat plane- which makes no sense if SPACE IS CURVED. So now you explain Einstein's gravity with Newton's law, are you fucking joking ? Einstein contradicts Newton, he says gravity is not a force but a curvature of space-time, while Newton says gravity is a force in a flat space ! There is no problem between Newtons theory and the planets orbiting in a flat plane, like you mention it is perfectly explainable using Newton's law, but there is a huge problem in the case of Einsteins theory, which cannot explain why the planets orbit in the same flat plane if the space in which they orbit is curved. If its not an actual bending of anything then why do mainstream scientists keep pretending that it is ('matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move'), and keep giving the same fabric sheet example over and over ? And how is the aberration in the video an accurate description of reality ? Do you seriously think that it has anything to do with reality ? Where do you think you are, the Matrix ?