If the sun were the size of a pea the distance to the edge of the solar system would be within the length of a football field and Proxima Centauri would be 225 miles away.

If we knew there was vegetation, that would be proof of life. Plants are alive.

But we can't see exoplanets in enough detail to detect these things. The closest we can get is detecting the composition of the atmosphere.

How would we be able to predict observable things like solar eclipses years, decades, or even centuries in advance if our model of the solar system was not accurate?

How does your "friend's" theory account for those things?

There's no evidence of that. That's pure speculation at best, but a better name for it would be a lie.

Fish eye lenses have a very distinct warping effect. You can tell when they are being used.

How about the fact that we've left the earth, taken pictures of it from space, and sent spacecraft millions of miles away from it? How could we do that if we were inside it?

Your friend is either willfully ignorant or messing with you.

You're welcome. I hope you enjoy it. I did.

Yes, it's very possible. You should read the book "Dragon's Egg". It deals with this exact idea.

Also, it's a great book.

Around 25 million meteors hit Earth's atmosphere every day. Most are not visible, but on a dark night it's not uncommon to see 5-10 visible meteors per hour from wherever you happen to be.

These are not being tracked. It would be nearly impossible to do so.

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. The moons just exist because of the physical realities of gravitational influence.

There's no reason for it beyond that.

Earth isn't livable because of the moon. The moon just helps. It doesn't mean that any planet with a moon can support life.

"Our Universe" (with Morgan Freeman) is the one I liked most recently.

It's on Netflix

We can't see exoplanets directly. We see the effect their atmospheres have on the light that passes through them, and we see the gravitational effects the planets have on their parent star in the form of the stars' "wobble". There are no direct images of exoplanets.

Edit: I stand corrected. We have directly imaged exoplanets

If the resources are there, I'd say mid-to-late 30s wouldn't be an unreasonable guess.

To me "rich" means you can choose not to work for the rest of your life and still have enough money to be comfortable.

A million dollars already won't cut it by that standard.

Have you ever been on an airplane? If so, you've seen the world in a way that most humans who have ever lived could only dream of.

In the future you're describing people will feel the same way about missing out because what you see as fantastic right now, they will see as mundane.

Sorry you're feeling that way, but you should probably find a sub about relationships. This one is about cosmology.

Yeah totally, each person individually going to the tree is a much more efficient system. /s

No. But it'd be bright enough that we could see it in the sky during the day and it would be the brightest object in the night sky.

They can lay a claim, but that doesn't mean that anyone will honor that claim. It's the wild west.

Plus, the Outer Space Treaty forbids ownership of celestial bodies.

The chances of it not happening are enormous.

The chances of that happening in the next 100 years are very small.

What if someone you did know well said it to you in an environment with a lot of background noise?

Nothing. This isn't something we need to think about or consider at all until there is even one bit of objective evidence that extra-terrestrials have visited Earth.

It's just a waste of time.

Only if you say it condescendingly.

"Was it difficult to hear what I said? Do you need me to repeat it?"