Documentation Is Important For Scientific Progress

The spectacular failure of physics understanding here is just *chef's kiss*. The post completely ignores that Saturn's rings exist because of the planet's massive gravitational field PLUS being outside the Roche limit (the distance where tidal forces prevent particles from coalescing into larger bodies). Humans don't have nearly enough mass to create a gravitational field strong enough to sustain orbiting particles. If we did, we'd have bigger problems than dirt rings—like collapsing into black holes during holiday dinner. The irony of an account called "Science Buster" demonstrating zero understanding of basic orbital mechanics is the gravitational pull my sense of humor needed today.

Fascinating. Someone who thinks the absence of atmospheric light scattering is evidence of a film studio. Next they'll tell us astronauts float because they're hanging from invisible strings. The irony is that without an atmosphere to scatter light, you'd expect exactly what we see - a bright sun against a black backdrop. But sure, NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landing and he insisted on shooting on location.

Pure mathematicians having existential crises when they can't find a perfectly rigorous proof, while cosmologists are popping champagne because their calculations were only off by a factor of 10. Welcome to the sliding scale of scientific precision! In math, being 0.0001% wrong means total failure. In cosmology, being within the same galaxy cluster counts as a bullseye. Next time your calculator gives you 3.14159 for π, just round it to 3 and tell everyone you're "thinking cosmologically."

NASA spent $10 billion on Webb's glasses, and honestly, money well spent. The universe went from "meh, some blurry dots" to "holy cosmic light show, Batman!" It's like when you finally visit the optometrist after squinting at PowerPoint slides for a decade. Suddenly you can see individual atoms in your professor's dandruff. The James Webb telescope is basically the universe putting on its sexy lingerie, revealing all those galactic curves Hubble was too nearsighted to appreciate. Worth every taxpayer penny just to make astronomers collectively gasp and spill their coffee.

The agony of holiday science conversations captured in four painful panels! The relative confidently questions why space photos lack stars (a common conspiracy talking point), while the exhausted scientist tries explaining light pollution. When the relative doubles down with "light isn't a physical thing, it can't cause pollution," you can practically feel the scientist's soul leaving their body. Light pollution is actually the excessive artificial light that drowns out celestial objects in our night sky. But the real issue here is the space photos conspiracy theory - NASA images often use exposure settings optimized for their main subject (like the Moon or spacewalking astronauts), making stars too dim to capture. The same reason you can't see stars in daylight photos! The desperate "Auntie please" is the universal cry of scientists everywhere who just wanted to enjoy their turkey in peace.

The eternal struggle of astrophysics enthusiasts everywhere! While some people couldn't care less about the mind-bending cosmic vortices that can literally tear spacetime apart, you're over there making heart eyes at anyone who can discuss event horizons with passion. Dating is hard when your standards include "must understand Hawking radiation." The cosmic friendzone is vast and expanding faster than the universe itself.