Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Filehaus
Recent
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Orb: On the Movements of the Earth 1x10 Reaction Extended (YT link below) (Patreon)

Published:
2025-08-02 01:00:04
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Videos

  • 508818765.mp4

Downloads

  • 508818765.mp4

Missing 1 video.

Content

In Orb 1x10, Truth, we must save the peasants from heresy and reading.

Dear Diary, today my best friend Badeni proved Heliocentrism! 🐱

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YouTube Link:

https://youtu.be/_z2lniSqLSY

Comments

bl0odm1st

Best part of the week!

Ryan

6:20 "Is this it? Is this right?" --> Actually, rather brilliantly, that explanation of a rainbow is 100% incorrect in much the same way as geocentrism, which is a cool parallel. It is the 1500s version of cutting-edge scientific understanding, but that was all before Newton's studies on optics in the mid-1600s made all of that obsolete. It's really amazing that the author was able to go back and find out what scientific minds from the age before optics existed believed was true and use it as a plot point to highlight Badeni's character. Hearing that you have enough knowledge to get through things, I won't go into an explanation, but if it interests you, Veritasium has a well-done YouTube video explaining rainbows from first principles (as in, not just "because of the way light is refracted in water," but rather, explaining why refraction happens and why different wavelengths of light refract differently) 15:18 "Truth" is, you're absolutely right, a terrible translation that I'm sympathetic with because translating it would be very hard. The Japanese title of this show is チ, "chi." Just the katakana / sound "chi." The subtitle is "on the movements of the earth," but the title is just "chi." When Oczy stumbles across the stone chest, he sees Rafal's letter, titled "the earth" in fake-Polish, which he pronounced "chi" as in 地 (the earth). In this episode, Badeni says that the thing that is required to pull humanity out of immorality is "chi," but in this case, it's 知 "wisdom / knowledge / discernment." I don't think that "truth" is a good translation here, actually, especially since the author literally just last episode had a whole focus on "truth" (where the word was 'shinri', 真理), and this is clearly meant to be different from that. I think "wisdom" or "discernment" would be closer to what Badeni is saying there. Anyway, there are many things that can be pronounced "chi," and I don't think it's a spoiler to say that this pun will come up again. It's a classic trope in Japanese fiction broadly: use kana to show how multiple interpretations of a similar thing can be simultaneously possible and insightful. :)

Ryan
>>182635317

Also, sorry, but on translation: "heliocentrism" actually isn't a good translation of what Badeni / Rafal / Hubert say their theory is. They call their theory 地動説 chi-dou-setsu, or "earth-moving-theory." It's not necessarily about the sun being at the center of the universe. It's just a theory in which the Earth moves rather than being a fixed point in space. Heliocentrism *was* the main competitor to geocentrism, but that still placed the Sun as the center of the universe. It wasn't long after the telescope became commonplace that people started to doubt whether the Sun itself moved, but it would take centuries to prove that.

Kieran

I have a lot to say, so this will be a long comment, but I want to start with a short note that I never really thought about this, but man the OST for this show is awesome. Anyways, first thing I want to discuss. I do find Badeni's comment on heliocentrism being complete, as the model that he created is actually very slightly incorrect/incomplete, which I think is intentional. Newton discovered the theory of Universal Gravitation, which lead to a very accurate model of heliocentrism, even allowing people to predict the existence of planets that they weren't yet able to see based on the orbital paths of the planets. It was a sublime theory. Over the years however, people noticed that there was a small issue in the orbit of Mercury that didn't align with the theory. But everyone just assumed it was a small wrinkle that would one day be ironed out. This small wrinkle is what planted the seed for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. I haven't studied General Relativity yet (I plan to do so next semester in uni), but the basic idea is that it created a new theory for gravity which could explain the little discrepancy with Mercury. It's very complex, and it is unlikely Badeni discovered Relativity in order to create his model (I highly doubt they could even gather accurate enough data to see the discrepancy). This means that Badeni describes as the truth is still incorrect, and inherently encoded within that is that it will one day become the orthodoxy which must be challenged, much like geocentrism vs. heliocentrism (well, a bit less controversial, probably). It's a very interesting irony that I imagine is quite intentional. Even in our righteous quests, there will be pitfalls that we can never see and have to entrust to the future generations. That's part of the reason why I really hate looking down on ancient and Medeival people as dumb/silly for some of their beliefs which we now know to be false. Many of the people I've known who laughs at them wouldn't even know how to create the tools that could begin probing the deeper truths of the Universe (hell, I don't trust that I'd be very good at creating primitive tools and I'm studying Physics and Maths for a living.) We should always try to remain humble. Maybe. Probably. Possibly. I want to next talk about the Church post collapse of the Roman Empire. I'm very far from being an expert on the subject, I've really only read one book on the subject, but I think the Church played a very important role. Various tribes/kingdoms took over the remains of the Western Empire. The Church was an organisation that had garnered a lot of wealth and influence, and these new kingdoms gained a lot from the support of the Church. At the same time, the philosophy of the Church was to spread their teaching to the entire world no matter what in order to achieve salvation for humanity. This added a check to the power of the fractured kingdoms at first, and later in time was a binding force for these different kingdoms and helped maintain a more stable Europe. Though there was obviously still lots of war, I think it provided an international identity of 'being Christian'. They obviously did a lot of academics, philosophy, and science in monasteries while keeping copies of ancient knowledge that we wouldn't have otherwise (think about it, all throughout the show we have priests and other characters talking about the writings of pagans from thousands of years ago written in dead languages. Such knowledge requires a big organisation to keep these things in stock (though I've heard they have also maybe destroyed a lot of knowledge? I'd need to learn more). The Church during and shortly after the collapse of the Roman Empire is a fascinating topic I'd recommend you look into. On a related note, I want to go into various ideas surrounding the Church. To start with, their moral code. In their mind, the Christian faith is something dictated by God and interpreted by Man. It is an absolute moral code which may have some imperfections due to imperfections in humanity. As part of this, salvation is a central idea of the faith, that there is no other way to attain eternal life and happiness unless you believe in the salvation of Jesus Christ. I think this is part of the reason that the Church spread Christian faith so aggressively early in its history, they had a moral imperative to allow other peoples and cultures to find salvation. Thinking about it from a more secular perspective, if you knew for certain that a person was currently on a life path that would lead them to eternal suffering (I dunno, maybe a mad scientist makes them immortal and traps them in a hamster wheel made of razor blades), what would you be willing to do in order to put them on a better path? Do you respect their right to a completely independent path, or do you have an imperative to expend everything in your power in order to give them a better life? I think it's a hard question to answer when you begin having to trudge into payments that could be considered atrocities in and of themselves. If multiple people are on this bad path, then it becomes even more complex. Of course, I'm not justifying a lot of the fucked stuff that the Church has done, but I think it's an interesting moral framework to think about. I'm not entirely sure where my hard line exists. I would give someone a minor cut in order to save the hypothetical person, but would I be willing to torture them for hours? To kill someone else to prevent an eternity of pain for another? To put the evil people that will harm this hypothetical person to death? This also is where the idea of heretics being victims comes from, and I think it's an interesting perspective that makes it a bit harder for me to outright hate the Church. I also think that the topic around spreading truth to the masses and how important it is is interesting. One thing to consider is how difficult it is to spread the truth to some people. I don't consider myself to be a particularly intelligent man, rational thinking isn't something that comes to me naturally and I've honed it over many years. But there are occasionally people that I struggle to convey truth to (say, on ideas in Physics which I have studied and done experiments to prove, things I have physically observed). There's many layers to something that a person believes in. There is rationality, emotionality, spirituality, social constraints, and probably other perspectives I'm not considering. Finding a way to hit all of those for a person is incredibly difficult and allow people to fester in untruth. However, maybe it's arrogant to think about 'spreading truth' or educating people. What is the role of the average person in bringing humanity closer to truth? How do you know when you have actual truth? What degree should establishments be involved vs. individual action? Just imagining it gives me a headache. Great reaction, I hope that my comment has a few nuggets that you find a little interesting. Can't wait for the next episode.

Cole Hoffman

I haven't been keeping up with all of your posts, and I very rarely comment....but what are your thoughts on watching One Piece? i know you've talked about it in the past. I would love to hear your thought processes on the show.

agoodwintv
>>182762618

Where I've stood on One Piece for a while is that I want to watch it but it's so intimidating :D Also I have heard there is a new version coming out so that also makes it less clear

agoodwintv
>>182653189

Thank you for the great and insightful comment and sorry for the delayed response :D That is great information about Heliocentrism and the theory of relativity. I did not know that. I also agree with the idea of humility when thinking about our ancestors. What's interesting to me is that it's not even the case that we are way ahead of our ancient ancestors in EVERY way. It's easy to think we are, but then you read the works of ancient philosophers and realize that even the most profound ideas, the ones that endure, have been captured long long ago. The fact that this doesn't seem to have "solved" anything is connected to what you wrote about spreading ideas. The idea of "spreading" truth itself is interesting. There's a bit of an ethical conundrum which you also touched on about the methods by which truth is spread. If you manage to get someone to take an idea from you, but you did so through coercion, emotional manipulation, or super reductive thinking that no longer captures the full reality of what you're trying to pass (dumbing it down so it's accepted) can you still consider it the spreading of truth? If not, can truth ever really be spread or directly passed? Maybe what this points to is a different goal of expressing truth. You say the truth as best as you know it, as honestly as you can, and you have faith that that is the best thing you could do. This would probably fall into the "process" category of thinking as opposed to result. I do think that at least this prevents some of the more extreme pitfalls of ideology as I see and have experienced them.