hamlets mill may interest you.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Kepler was several hundred years later than Shen Kuo of china who described “willow leaf” shaped motion of planets and retrograde motion in the 11th century AD.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Shen_Kua/

I would agree with you.

And one has to take a look at who they're communicating with in order to have an quicker understanding of where they're coming from. If your feathers get ruffled by people reading through what you post that's on you.

I liked and enjoyed your post, btw.

Astigmatism is mostly a modern phenomenon

[deleted]

Agreed. I didn't originally bring up Hancock, another commenter did. My opinion the ton of that comment was to conflate Hancock with the Tepe sites, and discredit humanity having understood the stars far longer than has been generally accepted. There are many mainstream academics doing real research on Tepe. I having done a decent amount of reading of their work (by no means all of it); it does seem that some of the pillars were purposefully arranged to alight with astrological dates.

That really was my point. Humanity has been using astronomy as an exact science for about 12k years. And obviously it's controversial statement.

Also, lastly. Yes, I would agree with you to leave academic process to the academics most of the time. Recently I am sure you're aware of the extremely large glowing gas arc discovery by amateur astronomers. The cloud is about 3x larger than the moon, from our perspective, in the night sky. Totally missed by the actual academics.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/amateur-astronomers-find-glowing-gas-arc-near-andromeda/

[removed]

It’s a little more than $6

[deleted]

Males and females tend to have different rod and cone distribution in their eyes. On average guys have better night vision and peripheral vision. Women tend to have better color differentiation.

By reference the internet I mean read papers from the teams doing research on the Tepe sites.

It's really not much different than the very thought provoking but ultimately fanciful dismantling of Mercury, first proposed by Bradbury and now ostensibly emboldened by some maths and the think-tank FHI. Im really not here to defend Hancock, but he has presented some compelling ideas that rubs the mainstream academic community sore, as many newer ideas do, especially when it goes against the narrative. People call them idiots or pseudoscience pushers, until they give the idea a fair subjective chance.

Just remember, it's only going to get cheaper. In ten years maybe you could get an orbital flight or even go around the moon for the same money, so unless you're planning on this becoming a recurring purchase it could even be wise to hold on to that a little longer

Our needs..

We will have evolved to the needs of our environments

Im not saying the environments needs..

The environment doesn't need anything. That's not how that word is used.

Just like a person does not go to the store for "the needs of the store", a species does not evolve for "the needs of the environment".

Additionally, a species doesn't evolve due to specific environmental "needs" (whatever that means). It evolved when a mutation provides a higher chance of offspring that survive. That can have nothing to do with "need".

Hello u/SmoKKe9, your submission "Can I go to space with 500k?" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

[deleted]

Hint: debris is not that different from an active Russian satellite if you’re the US military.

It can also be light sensitivity.

I have, apparently, insanely good dark vision compared to my wife. If there is slight moonlight, or light pollution on a cloudy night I can make out pretty much everything in our house just with ambient light from outside while she can barely see what's 4 to 5 feet away. When I go to the eye doctor they don't have to dilate my pupils because they get so large in the dark they don't have to.

It's possible your pupils get much larger and take in more light than your wife's. She might see with the same clarity, 20/20, but not get enough light to see dim things. I wouldn't say that makes her eyesight "bad" if that's the case. She might be better equipped to deal with bright scenes instead.

The "needs of the environment" is why we we develop the traits that make that survival easier.

For instance, people who have lived at high altitudes for generations tend to have larger spleens and looped capillaries because that is what was needed to live easier in that environment

You know, you could fill that hole in your life quite a bit cheaper by dedicating that time and effort to other life. Your sense of self needs to expand or you'll continue to waste away.

Evolution prefers traits that allow the species to better survive in the environment. There is no "need of the environment" involved.

What is it you think the environment "needs" in order for a species to evolve.

I suspect you meant to say humans have evolved to be better adapted to our environment. If so, your phrasing is very non-standard and confusing.

Maybe we are. It's not what you know, it is who you know. Catch my drift young homie?

Hello u/Thirdy-DOg, your submission "Are Two Tidally Locked Earth in One Solar System Possible?" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.