this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
327 points (98.2% liked)

InsanePeopleFacebook

2663 readers
3 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

That's right! The sun, the thing that prevents our entire planet from being a frozen rock, which imparts 44 quadrillion watts of energy on the Earth's surface, is just an elaborate NASA hoax!

They actually generate all that energy with...

...Uh...

???

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Solar simulators are actually really cool, and it's a shame these goobers are too busy pretending to know everything, in order to feel special, to actually learn what they are.

(If someone hasn't heard of them, here's one of the biggest ones.)

[–] brbposting 15 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

They generate that power using the unlimited abundance of energy generated by the mental gymnastics of people like these

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They actually generate the sun using solar power. Duh.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Thoughts and prayers, duh.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Another comment explains that it's solar powered.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If it's 44 quadrillion Watts per year, how many is it per second?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I see my comment flew over your head, although I appreciate all the info you shared. It's just that the sun doesn't deliver Watts per year or per second. The Watt is a unit of power and as such is already energy per time. Watts/year is a nonsense unit, at least in this context.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Actually I miss read my source. I was assuming the figure I was quoted was a watt-year.