New in cosmology and fundamental physics

Even a person with below average intuition can see that if you have two objects wandering high above a disk, there is a permanent line of sight to those objects from everywhere.
Here are two photos of mine of a real sunset. You can see the Sun partially below the horizon in the first photo and slightly further below the horizon in the second. I can assure you, it was 100% below the horizon a couple of minutes later, as can be verified once a day in most locations by any non-blind person with a brain,  if the weather is conducive.

How crazy do you have to be to think that the Sun visibly MOVING DOWN BELOW THE HORIZON is "perspective"?

Note also that the fact that the Sun looks the same angular size all the time from all locations (apart from slight variation over the year due to the Earth's orbit) means it is at a distance which scarcely varies. Since the distance scarcely varies, what is this trash about "perspective"?

Here is a video taken by someone else on a nice clear day. Anyone who can't see the Sun falling below the horizon in this video should not be outside without a guide dog.

Oh yes, I'm clever and stuff but I've been told never to say that here. People become annoyed. You'd think they'd see it as their privilege!

You made inaccurate statements and expressed poorly informed views as facts. Avoid that to avoid vigorous counters!

A word in support of Elroch, Melvin. Ever since the Powers That Be removed our previously wonderful colour palette and replaced it with a shoddy one, probably to save on bandwidth, it's been difficult. Red and orange are the two colours that best stand out whereas the previous colours were more luminous and almost any could be used.

MG - James Caan Rollerball is a cult classic.  Richard Dawson made The Running Man worth watching. 

 I said YouTube deleted countless videos/channels several years ago and flooded the platform with anti-FE/globe propaganda videos etc. and changed their algorithms to lead the newcomer/researcher to a dead end. 

That was the purpose of the Flat Earth Society set up many moons ago. It is referred to as Controlled Opposition. Yet, many/most globe believers use it to refute FE.

See how that works!?

Thanks - I have had feedback that the blue text that looks good on a PC is bad on some mobiles.

MG - did you not see Total Recall? There is an ancient alien built super-atmosphere-machine that melts the Ice Core of Mars and creates a habitable atmosphere in a few minutes time

Talking of refutations of sensible things, It's snowing here, which is unusual for March, although not unheard of. My son was born on 1st May 1987 and my wife tells me that the day after, it snowed. I vaguely remember but I was suffering from jetlag, concussion and the after effects of my wife's entinox, (nitrous oxide) of which I liberally partook, because I needed it more than she did, being jetlagged, concussed and very tired.

Anyway, my son now has a son, called Arthur, aged 7 months, who is at present holidaying in Vaasa, Finland, with his mum, where it's minus 21 Centigrade, apparently. It's clear that the climate change deniers have been on the telephone to God and have summoned up an ice age.

That's as far removed from reality as the confused videos you post.

I think Mars can retain an atmosphere. Remember it has one after billions of years. Oxygen would be only slightly more easily lost than CO2. It's hydrogen that is easily lost (water decomposed by ultraviolet).

Speaking of Mars "reality" what has become of NASA's robots roaming around on the surface as well as their remote-control helicopter hovering about... 41 million miles away?

They did. Ever see Capricorn One?

The density does not affect how easily it is retained (the amount lost per year is a percentage independent of density as long as temperature is the same).

A very low percentage of molecules happen to have escape velocity, depending only on temperature and the Planck distribution. (Molecular mass is key, since lighter molecules have the same energy, so higher velocity).

Interestingly, large planets can retain hydrogen and helium, but small ones like ours lose these rapidly. Each molecule has a sort of "escape half-life" in an atmosphere (depending solely on the temperature profile and strength of gravity). According to this article, the escape half-life for helium on Earth is about 2 million years, so about 99.95% of all the helium that would be there has been lost.

MG - How about K-PAX? I enjoyed that one. Perfect actor.. Kevin SPACEy

How about Plan 9 from Outer Space? Ed wood Jr. Voting worst director ever

Tim Burton made a movie about him simply named Ed Wood. 

Bill Murray was a hoot, and stole the show....as usual! 

Elroch - Helium is something NASA cannot live without. Largest consumer of helium on earth. 

Hmm....I wonder why? Well, they claim it is needed for rockets but is more efficient when used with helium balloons and satellites attached to them

It might be fairly stable excluding unforeseen events but it would still be very thin, so I doubt it would maintain itself.

.

What does "maintain itself" mean? It would lose a small fraction each year, but not enough to make a significant difference in millions of years.

You worship NASA - you think they can make balloons that are observed to move at 5 miles per second! (Hint: air resistance)

Sanity implies the ISS has been in space for the last 20 years, not floating in the upper atmosphere under a balloon as you believe.

More info:

Mars has lost most of its atmosphere over billions of years. A major reason is the solar wind impacting the upper atmosphere and effectively making it very hot. This happened once it lost its magnetic field which protects Earth. But this was still a relatively slow process.

In my opinion, Mars is too small to have EVER developed intelligent life. Simple, cellular forms of life would have existed. Perhaps this content supports my opinion somewhat.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/mars-ocean