Is it normal i dont believe some of the stuff from nasa

Never
A
Straight
Answer....

Skepticism is a healthy thing. You shouldn't trust anything a stranger tells you. If you're going to say these are the "smartest people in the world" and you believe they're scientists, you should hold them to the scientific method. With the religion of NASA moonieism, this never happens and religious belief takes over for science.

The problem with NASA is they can literally make up anything they want and people would believe it. None of the stuff they put out is ever really viewed through a critical lens in the mainstream.

Stuff like saying they're going to build a domed settlement on the moon to use as a transfer point to another domed settlement on mars. Looking past how ridiculous and useless this would be, the logistics of building and maintaining something like that would be completely impossible. Who would want to live there? But that's what we're supposed to believe they're doing "research" for up on the completely fake ISS.

What's the endgame here? What type of return on investment can the american taxpayer ever hope to see from NASA? What's the goal, contact some possible but not probable alien republic of planets or some other sci fi crap? Im not buying it and neither should you. 100% of NASA is a hoax and tax scam.

Black holes are BS.

So for one when gravity is influenced by something, like a black hole, it sends like a ripple in spacetime. They use evidence *like* this to determine size and location

Second, if scientists really explained every facet of every detail nothing would be learned because there would be too many people not reading the article and they wouldn't be given enough freedom to process the information

In like Socrates' time they calculated the exact size of the earth off by an almost negligible amount. They also had this computer thing that calculated the position of the sun, earth, moon and other celestial bodies.

Just because you don't know the science or they don't spill the beans on how they do everything doesn't mean some guy eating a donut is going about his day like "yeah that black hole is like 40x the mass of the sun and probably 100k light years away. Man Carol was such a bitch last night I don't know what's wrong"

why dont you read the science of how they came to that conclusion before you get all skeptical

All methods have an error rate. In the case of carbon dating they have discovered that the older techniques had much larger error ranges than the newer techniques. So, I'd go with a carbon dating date done in the last 20 years.

As far as distance to stellar objects. There are in fact several different ways they check their calculated distance for consistency.

One of the most accurate to a certain point is that they measure the position in the sky of the "object" - and then 6 months later measure it again after the earth has moved to the other side of the sun. You can see the angle shift - and its a simple triangle calculation to determine distance.

The other is that the farther away something is the greater the red-shift as items farther away are accelerating away from us faster. They look for specific spectral lines of common elements - and know the estimated distance by the amount of shift, combined with the estimated expansion rate of the universe.

Over the decades, the accuracy of the red-shift measurement has not changed much, the accuracy of the measurement of the expanding universe has improved a lot.

Anyway, I don't doubt that their estimates on distances for such objects are off by much more than their claimed accuracy (off the top of my head I'm not sure of the claimed accuracy rate for red-shift/expansion calculations: I knew what they were about 35 years ago).

Peace