Telescopes and Pyramids (feat. Physics Girl) - Objectivity 193 

I always enjoy Objectivity episodes that contain a dash of Schadenfreude.

bobby288 Obviously deletable as well...

they do mention in a lot of other episodes that names get crossed out of the Charter Book if the fellow fails to pay their regular membership fees

*@chemxcore* I had the the same thought, it’s EPIC! I felt like they were slighting him a bit, when they should have been amazed! Oh well, different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.

I agree! I'd love to see it side by side with the Cassini photograph at a similar angle!

Probably pretty much but written in a fancy way.

Matt Parker.

@@amber1862 I guess that happened when they found out about the Parker Square.

Erich von Danniken

Amberoot Audio idk if it was Matt or not but the one who was scrapped sure was a Parker FRS

Amberoot Audio lolo gud one bro 😭😭😂😂

Classic un-prepared outdoor adventure, glad you came out alright. Make sure you learn from your mistakes. There was a guy who died on Long Peak in Colorado this summer because he was unprepared and got lost. Turned out he'd done the same thing a couple years back and got rescued. Apparently didn't learn from the experience at all.

First time seeing a mountain? Where are you from?

There could be weeks of videos on the effort ( and some doctoral papers ) dedicated to explaining away the appearance of continental drift. I recall the first people looking at the symmetric bands of magnetic rock on either side of the mid Atlantic ridge were a bit hesitant to call it that in the face of the existing work debunking the idea of drift.

The problem is the right photo is somewhat discolored, causing some mismatch. I can be done, through not ideally; specially the background.

I can get it on my desktop PC too, by reducing the zoom level down to about 60% and then diverging my eyes (as if looking at something further away than the screen). I've looked at a lot of 3D stereogram pictures before. If the pictures were the other way around then we'd be able to get the effect by crossing our eyes instead of diverging them and we wouldn't need to zoom out.

Works just fine on a laptop for me.

@@superfluidity You can also just back away from your screen to make the divergent method work without zooming out. Essentially you're trying to get the arc length between the centers of the photographs in your field of view to be equal to or less than the distance between your eyes.

@@error.418 I'm not sure I understand. If my interpupillary distance is e.g. 6cm, and the maximum I'm able to diverge my eyes is to what I would need to look at something very far away, then don't I need the displacement between the images to be more than 6cm? If the images are 10cm displaced on my screen how far would I need to back away? How would you calculate it?

Yup, I did that too. Glad I wasn't the only one! :)

r/ParallelView

Got them a new sub.

Sir Smyth's huff arrived, and he departed in it.

Anyone who's ever heard of Groucho had the very same thought.

I agree. The main problem today is that the fact that someone is unreliable (because of earlier lying or misdoings) seem to vanish in the mist of the Tavistockish media coverage.

With that method it would almost be hard NOT to falsify data though. Lord knows I can't paint very well...

By falsifying data, I mean to report things you know are not correct. It really has nothing to do with bad drawings.

@@erictaylor5462 Fair enough. Although you still had the problem that no one else could really re-interpret the data you took in this way since they have no way of knowing how accurate your reproduction is.

Okay, look. The point of science is you can make the same observations later and get the same data. Interpreting the data is done after that data is gathered. I'll give you an example. Say some flat Earther wants to prove this by observation. He goes out and watches a ship sailing away. He sees the hull of the ship disappear over the horizon before the sails do. This observation is inconsistent with the flat Earth and, in fact, is consistent with the globe model. The flat Earther then says he sat the ship sail away until it was too far away to see, with the hull visible the entire time. Now another person performs the same observation and sees the hull disappear first. At this point the second observer will know the flat Earther falsified his data. In this case, where they are looking at carefully drawn maps, we can be sure how accurate it is by looking at the original data. If we doubt the data we can always do the measurements ourselves. So yes, we *CAN* know how accurate the reproduction is.

There was also Francis Beaufort, of the Beaufort scale, and the guy who picked Darwin for the trip.

Wikipedia notes earlier observations from 1665 and 1713 of what is believed to be the same storm, and that it has been continuously observed since 1830

Which way is up?

I was wondering about that

The planets aren't bright enough for that, but a beam splitter to view through the telescope, and down at the paper at the same time could be done.

243 views and still the only comment? Objectivity viewers surprise me, actually waiting to watch the whole video before commenting

yes

Certainly sounds right to me.

I also always heard it pronounced differently (more the way it is spelled).

If I remember rightly, his father was friends with an Italian scientist called Piazzi, and chose one of his son's names in honour of him. So it's an Italian name and Keith's pronunciation is near enough.

I think he means occult simply as 'hidden', rather than alleging that the Society is organized in covens.

*@Jonathan Richards* I think he means secret dealings.

RIP Terry. You and Diana will be together again in Heaven.

@@NewAnimalMusic the CIA will ensure this will not happen. cease your investigations.

well don't just sit there...