this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
72 points (92.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44148 readers
314 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Come again?
The more detailed pictures will be of these type of objects(stars),
the harder it will be to ignore their large sizes
and thus theories about them.
Too many of these space objects are not behaving as they should have,
and so any crutch theories about them will be crushed.
Stars simply don't work the way we think they do.
Planetary and star formation simply doesn't work the way we currently think they do.
And the clearer the pictures are of these space objects,
the more clear it becomes that what scientists theorized
of what they thought they were looking at, just isn't it.
One of them that should have alarmed scientists,
but hasn't, is how comets suspiciously look like asteroids,
pure rock, while they should have looked very icy with
some dust sprinkled on them.
You might even say that they look the same, but are just
traveling in different orbits.
And that would explain why the Philae lander's harpoons
wasn't able to penetrate "the ice" and instead bounced back.