วีดีโอ

Looks like an actual astronomer (me) will have some needed explaining to do, expect my video(s) this and/or next weekend :)

Hi Cris, on my second TH-cam channel your second video translated in Italian language Have my best PS I send an e mail three day ago... dino

Hi Cris, I send an email about the translation in Italian language and make this your new Playlist like last time Physics of Kryptonite. Check the spam Have my best and thank you in advance Dino

Just wondering ... wouldn't size factor into the inverse square law equation as well?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Experiment for you: Your telescope will focus on an object 10m to 15m away, wait till dark, focus in on a dim object 10m to 15m away, (use a dim torch to illuminate if needed) , look with your eye, then through scope with a 10mm eyepiece. it will be a lot dimmer through scope. Not brighter. Now, how can that telescope see stars or Neptune to dim to see with the naked eye, if its not making the light brighter?

Thank You 'Chris.' I intend to share your complete series with credits -> You!

What an incredible series! So well done. Thank you for all the hard work you put into this.

A bit off topic but it's a necessary condition. If a tire (non slip condition) has a VEHICLE speed rating of "V" (149mph / 240kph) then the speed of the tire at the top is double that at 298mph/480kph PLUS margin for a safety factor. After all it could be deadly to have a tire not hold together at its rated speed. So you have two tensile forces. 1. Radially 2. Tangentially I wonder what the tangential tensile strength of soil is? I think I know the answer.... 😉

Everytime heliocentrism is tested it fails the test. It is reality only in the imagination.

Another bot upload with the intent to spread doubt and distrust. It even includes non-human narration.

Great work but why is there no transcript available?

Your videos do a wonderful job of highlighting the gaps in reasoning. Great work! On one hand, it's hard to understand how professional astrophysicists can miss this. On the other hand, I have personal experience of my own incredible ignorance. I have a PhD from an Astrophysics department and I had no clue about any of the issues raise in the video series. That said, I think I was a particularly poor PhD student 😂

Does the Butter Gun work differently in space? Does zero G do something different to the butter/light particle than on earth? Great videos Kryptonite! I particularly like your content on earth's so called constant velocity through space.

Dirt does not reflect light. A ball does not reflect light equally across its surface. The moon is flat just like earth and has its own source of illumination. Geocentric makes sense. Heliocentric is deception. Read Genesis

They use math to explain their astronomical nonsense. Chris uses math to debunk their lies. Pure poetry. Thank you sir!

There is only one possible conclusion. We have all been deceived, but many of us have awakened to the truth. Next up, you should all wonder WHY would they lie? There can only be one answer.

Genesis remains undefeated

Im the 1000th sub!!! YAY. Thanks for the lead here Taboo Conspiracy

This should be in every textbook in the world. Their kingdom would fall overnight.

Excellent, this will definitely help me on a video I am working. Thanks. BTW: Got here watching a video on Taboo Conspiracy's channel.

Ben sent me. No other way to find our small channels that are speaking the truth buried by YT Algo. I am downloading your videos for preservation!

Man, this is good stuff.

Excellent work my friend!

Ben put this up on Taboo Conspiracy today. Ben does a great job too.

I absolutely love your channel and content. I've watched your videos many, many, times. I was elated to see you back. Thank you for what you do, you have taught me a great deal. You should have 100k subs minimum.

Just wondering. Using David Weiss's "Sun Fade Out" video, (based on inverse square law) is it possible to calculate the distance to the sun?

Love your videos and look forward to more.

Mars is bright enough for us to perceive its colour because it's an entire planet, bathed in sunlight that is still at least 1/3 of the solar illumination on Earth. Telescopes DO NOT just magnify (and sometimes do not magnify at all, e..g.,, wide-field instruments). Sure, increasing magnification leads to dimmer images. But compensating for this is their ability to gather HUGE amounts of light, compared with the human eye (what else would you expect from a light collector several metres across compared to the small size and aperture of the human eye?). Anyone who's actually LOOKED through a telescope (i.e., directly with their eyes) can see vastly fainter stars than with the naked eye. And most scientific telescopic observations are done to CCD cameras or film. Telescopes can use electronic amplification (or ultra sensitive film) and do time exposures to increase the amount of light gathered from each object. They are NOT, so to speak, "dimming it down".

Well done my friend.

Very cool series. Can you also calculate the real,smaller sizes and distances ?

Much smaller and much closer. Well done!

I took a photograph of me standing on Bonneville salt flats (ground is pure white salt) and put it next to a purported "photo" of an astronaut on the moon. I then point out the light fall off in the distance of the moon vs NONE behind me at all. I ask them how that's possible? When I show people and ask them why doesn't the photo on the moon look like the one of me, they have a deer in the headlights look. I then point out the moon photo must have a near and local light source. That's when the cog dis kicks in and the mental gymnastics start to flow.

Our eyes deceive us.......

Wondering how tall the lighthouse would need to be so that the light could be see from 43 miles distant? I suppose we will get to that….

Excellent! Great to see you back.

Ball earth, ball earth, what'cha gonna do, whatcha gonna do cuz the curve aint true

Mahalo

The best professional video documentation proof of flat earth period. For reasons yet clearly unknown for general public, the flat earth is beeing hidden from us.

This is a complete misunderstanding of relativity.

Sorry this explanation is fundamentally flowed. The static and the moving rotational bodies experience the exact same acceleration. What Chris neglects (I think intentionally) is that velocity has both magnitude and direction, thus the velocity of the point on the circumference of a static rotational body have changing velocity. When you do the vectors the change in velocity (and thus acceleration) of the static and moving rotating object are identical. A practical 'real world' demonstration of this would be to take a spinning top onto an airplane and set it spinning. It would spin the exact same on the airplane flying at 550mph as it did on the ground. If you dont have a spinning top just ask for a glass of water and give it a stir, the water swirls round in the glass exactly the same on the plane in flight as it does on the ground.

So..... if earth is flat.... what is happening here... th-cam.com/video/kMjiYayjEzo/w-d-xo.html and here.... th-cam.com/video/Oge61gOqR6k/w-d-xo.html we do indeed live on a globe.... 😁 🌍🌐

Have you ever thought about the fact that the cartesian coordinate system, with its perpendicular horizontal and vertical planar axes, is the ONLY coordinate system that can be established in reality? Every physics formula in reality relies on this coordinate system to work. That means that every perpendicular to horizontal MUST BE vertical in reality. The only argument against it is "yeah but no one can ever establish a perfect cartesian coordinate system in reality" to which the rebuttal is obvious... all "tolerance" and/or "error" is measured +/- to these perpendicular horizontal and vertical vertical planar axes. If level somehow bent away from horizontal and verticals somehow (impossibly) tilted away from each other than this alleged "natural" bias would show up in EVERY physical experiment as a tolerance/error that bends AWAY from the perfection of those perpendicular horizontal and vertical planar axes of reality... but that NEVER happens.

I’m intrigued 🫣

@KryptonitePhysics it is very nice to see someone use a bit of mathematics in his reasoning. It helps to a apply mathematics a little bit further. As you showed for the resting observer, the velocity of the car changes and is the combination of the velocities of the circular motion vc(t) and the translation movement vt(t) = v0, where v0 is the velocity with which the observer moves. Then v(t) = vc(t) + vt(t). So on top of the circle the velocities of vc(t) and vt(t) are opposite to each other, so the resulting velocity v(t) is 0. On the bottom of the circle, however, the velocities of the car in the circle adds to the movement of the translation. You are perfectly right, both direction and speed change for the resulting vector. However, these changes cancel out when computing the acceleration. Acceleration is the change of velocity over time, i.e. a = (v(t2) - v(t1))/(t2 - t1) So if v(t) = vc(t) + vt(t) = vc(t) + v0, then v(t2) - v(t1) = vc(t2) + v0 - (vc(t1) + v0) = vc(t2) - vc(t1) + v0 - v0 = vc(t2) - vc(t1) This means for the acceleration a = (v(t2) - v(t1))/(t2 - t1) = (vc(t2) - vc(t1))/(t2 - t1) Thus, for the acceleration, only the velocities of the car on its circular motion matter while the velocities of the uniform translation cancel out. That is, both observers expect only to see the centrifugal acceleration with a constant amount (note that the centrifugal acceleration is a vector and that that vector changes as it always points away from the center of the circle the car makes; you said it wrong in your pinned comment). You can actually see this very nicely in the interactive simulation of oPhysics you linked to. If you show both vectors and there sum, you can clearly see that when you would subtract the resulting vectors, you would also subtract the constant vector from each other due to axle movement. Thus, the translation of the axle is irrelevant for the acceleration of a mass on the rim of the wheel. In general, for acceleration, a linear translation of the coordinate system with constant velocity does not have any influence on the acceleration. Consider a curve c(t) where the x- and y-coordinates are given by the functions c(t) and c'(t) = c(t) + v0 *t. Then the velocities are given by the change of location over time: v(t) = dc(t)/dt v'(t) = dc'(t)/dt = dc(t)/dt + v0 If we calculate the acceleration as the change in velocity over time, this gives a(t) = dv(t)/dt = dc(t)^2/d^2t a'(t) = dv'(t)/dt = dc(t)^2/d^2t + dv0/dt = dv(t)/dt as dv0/dt = 0 because v0 is constant. So the acceleration for both curves are the same regardless whether the curve is a circle, an ellipse or some other movement.