/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10205675
imo the strongest reason for skepticism is we haven't gone back in so long

yea the research mightve cost billions but it would be cheap to do it again. you already got the rockets, just use the old ones. flying in space doesn't even use up fuel, once you've accelerated. it'd literally be cheaper than crossing the atlantic.

I want REAL, concrete evidence that the earth is IN FACT round. Without any edited NASA footage, or the testimony of astronaut actors, or Einstein's Jewish "physics". Only provide intellectually honest, insightful answers, no ad hominems or any other logical fallacies.

REALS OVER FEELS

Because (((they))) made the ISS like that.

Fight the good fight OP

keep the truth alive op

>>8083634
This is cringey, and also galactose is a sugar (it's an epimer of glucose)

OK anons I know this looks like tin foil hat kookery, but I think there could be a case here. I'm merely a dirty undergrad, but I want to see if I could get some chemfags to sound off about this:

I know we tune the wavelengths to match the vibrational frequency of water, but hear me out -- there's a whole bunch of wacky reactions you can drive using microwave radiation. And there's an unfathomably large variety of different substrates present in your food.

Who's to say you're not potentially driving a reaction to create something nasty in your food, if the energy gap happens to match coincidentally to produce an undesirable product?