Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[NEGAN]

I have mentioned + and - as an alternate theory during this thread to explain orbits.

Do you think simulation theory is a plausible explanation?

It's a real tough one. Being in a simulation is possible when you see advancement in our own technology something like that could be plausible for us to create in 100-150 years time.

What blows your mind about it though is if true when you think that the entities that built our reality it's highly possible that they are a simulation themselves.

 

[darthbards]

I have to disagree. I think someone saying that gravity doesnt exist, and using all the examples he has shows thats definitely what he meant, is not the same as there are disagreements with the theory of gravity.

Lets find out. darthbards You onlyt need to answer A or B.
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.

I can still not find a yes no answer to my questions
Could the experiments have been influenced by
1. A separate force mimicking gravity (not gravity,not a separate force that is still gravity) A separate force performing one part of what we are currently being told what gravity is..... separate,not gravity.
2. From a repulsion being caused by a separate world or parallel universe.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

I can still not find a yes no answer to my questions
Could the experiments have been influenced by
1. A separate force mimicking gravity (not gravity,not a separate force that is still gravity) A separate force performing one part of what we are currently being told what gravity is..... separate,not gravity.
2. From a repulsion being caused by a separate world or parallel universe.

Yeah you can. Ive given answers to your questions with yes and no. And because i back myself and im not trolling, i wont just give you a random post number, ill quote the post.

Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Now can you do the same thing?
You only need to answer A or B.
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.

 

[darthbards]

It's a real tough one. Being in a simulation is possible when you see advancement in our own technology something like that could be plausible for us to create in 100-150 years time.

What blows your mind about it though is if true when you think that the entities that built our reality it's highly possible that they are a simulation themselves.

That also blows my mind,exactly. How many simulations could there be.
I think computer technology could just start devolving itself in some respects, and could improve far more rapidly than some people may be expecting.
I think it's starting to sound far more plausible than gravity,dark matter or dark energy,or a physical world at all.
Sometime when I look around,it's spooky,it seems to make sense.
It would also totally explain quantum theory that we have less of a clue about than gravity.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

It would also totally explain quantum theory that we have less of a clue about than gravity.

That your entire life and thoughts of interactions are just a blip, and that you dont actually exist. And that you are just a random simulation of an infinite level of simulations, that explains quantum theory?
Yes or no; do you know what quantum theory actually is?

 

[darthbards]

Yeah you can. Ive given answers to your questions with yes and no. And because i back myself and im not trolling, i wont just give you a random post number, ill quote the post.



Now can you do the same thing?
You only need to answer A or B.
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.

Why is there 3 yes and 1 no for 2 questions?

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Why is there 3 yes and 1 no for 2 questions?

More questions and still no answers. What a twist!

 

[darthbards]

That your entire life and thoughts of interactions are just a blip, and that you dont actually exist. And that you are just a random simulation of an infinite level of simulations, that explains quantum theory?
Yes or no; do you know what quantum theory actually is?

We have been through this,yes I have a rough understanding of quantum theory and yes,everything to me certainly appears it could be simulated.

 

[darthbards]

More questions and still no answers. What a twist!

Lol,

 

[Watchyourwaite]

We have been through this,yes I have a rough understanding of quantum theory and yes,everything to me certainly appears it could be simulated.

Yes but did you see how i used your previous and possibly insane post where you explained an inception level of being in a computer simulation wpuld "totally explain quantum theory".

So other than everything is as it is because we are "in a simulation" do you have any explanation to how it totally explains it?

I know your not gonna actually answer with a logical post. I'm just posting this for anyone who might accidentally read this thread.

 

[darthbards]

Yes but did you see how i used your previous and possibly insane post where you explained an inception level of being in a computer simulation wpuld "totally explain quantum theory".

So other than everything is as it is because we are "in a simulation" do you have any explanation to how it totally explains it?

I know your not gonna actually answer with a logical post. I'm just posting this for anyone who might accidentally read this thread.

Oh no, someone's questioning your belovered unproven Gravity.
Your scared we could be living inside a simulation,who cares. It doesn't actually change anything. If we are in a simulation we're already there,no body is going to pick you up and take you out of your belovered Gravity filled world and stick you in a simulation.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Oh no, someone's questioning your belovered unproven Gravity.
Your scared we could be living inside a simulation,who cares. It doesn't actually change anything. If we are in a simulation we're already there,no body is going to pick you up and take you out of your belovered Gravity filled world and stick you in a simulation.

illogical reply that doesnt respond to the question. Called it!


Im just trying to help NEGAN out.
Because he thinks you do think gravity exists, but just that you dont agree with the theory.

So do you
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.
A or B.

 

[darthbards]

illogical reply that doesnt respond to the question. Called it!


Im just trying to help NEGAN out.
Because he thinks you do think gravity exists, but just that you dont agree with the theory.

So do you
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.
A or B.

Negan knows my thoughts on Gravity and what % I believe its possibility is.
I'd say 25-30% chance of magic Gravity,so that would probably include A
I'd say the flat earth expulsion theory 2-4% chance
An repulsion force created by a parallel universe 25-30% chance
A computer code that is part of our simulation 50-60% chance.
Vibrating strings that are causing a Gravity via string theory 5-10% chance

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Gravity is what we call the force that keeps us on the ground on earth.
Gravity is the reason you cant fly, and the reason when you jump that you come back down. Its a constant force.

So with this in mind and regardless of what theory you subscribe to, do
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.

A or B?

 

[darthbards]

Gravity is what we call the force that keeps us on the ground on earth.
Gravity is the reason you cant fly, and the reason when you jump that you come back down. Its a constant force.

So with this in mind and regardless of what theory you subscribe to, do
A. you believe gravity exists.
B. you do not believe gravity exists.

A or B?

Baring everything in mind,your well aware of the answer...
A...happy

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I've carried out two experiments in the last 24 hours at the request of the gravity boys.
I have offered two alternate explanations to them for further discussion and have received no response. This does not include the flat earth upward propulsion theory that I also offered,but as discussed,am sceptical about

I have also asked for proof of gravities existence but have only been offered theory,dressed up as proof,in response.
One theory suggested I cannot fly,which I strongly believe is a genetical factor,more so than gravity,and I have also been given no response to my counter question regarding why birds can fly.

Look mate we've both proven that gravity isn't real by magically predicting our dinners. Such flawless logic.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

After having undertaken the two experiments requested by the gravity boys,do you think the two possibilities I raised for the outcome of these experiments is possible or impossible?

Did you jump out of a tall building?

 

[Wallaby]

If the moon didn't orbit the Earth it would be more of a circular pattern. No matter the way you splice it the sun has twice the gravitational pull on the moon the Earth. Yet the Earth still has hold of it.

It's perfectly tidal locked so we only see 1 face of the surface but it really highly improbable that the moon should work this way. It's too perfect and with danger of straying away from the topic this is the start of my belief of intelligent design. They believe our moon is one of the most unique bodies in our universe, not Earth.

Drivel.

Almost all the large satellites in our Solar System are tidally locked to the planets they orbit. It's the expected result when two bodies are orbiting each other with no transfer of angular momentum between them. Also known as 'physics'. The moon is a bog-standard planetary satellite (OK, it's on the large size for it's host planet, I'll give you that).

Pluto and Charon are tidally locked together - the same face of Charon always faces Pluto, and the same face of Pluto always faces Charon. This is due to the close similarity in size between the two, and the fact that the centre of gravity between the two bodies is actually in space between them. Mercury is tidally locked in a 3:2 rotation with the sun - it rotates 3 times for every two times it goes around the sun. This is also a stable configuration.

Just because you don't understand this stuff, doesn't mean it must be 'intelligent design'. These things are complicated. BUT - there's this wonderful tool called the Internet that has some great sites where you can at least obtain a basic understanding of how the world works (the people who write these went to university, and everything!).

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Drivel.

Almost all the large satellites in our Solar System are tidally locked to the planets they orbit. It's the expected result when two bodies are orbiting each other with no transfer of angular momentum between them. Also known as 'physics'. The moon is a bog-standard planetary satellite (OK, it's on the large size for it's host planet, I'll give you that).

Pluto and Charon are tidally locked together - the same face of Charon always faces Pluto, and the same face of Pluto always faces Charon. This is due to the close similarity in size between the two, and the fact that the centre of gravity between the two bodies is actually in space between them. Mercury is tidally locked in a 3:2 rotation with the sun - it rotates 3 times for every two times it goes around the sun. This is also a stable configuration.

Just because you don't understand this stuff, doesn't mean it must be 'intelligent design'. These things are complicated. BUT - there's this wonderful tool called the Internet that has some great sites where you can at least obtain a basic understanding of how the world works (the people who write these went to university, and everything!).

Pfffft.

You're just an Illuminati plant. So don't you dare bring logic, facts and reasoning to a conspiracy debate!

FlatEarth4Lyf!

 

[NEGAN]

Drivel.

Almost all the large satellites in our Solar System are tidally locked to the planets they orbit. It's the expected result when two bodies are orbiting each other with no transfer of angular momentum between them. Also known as 'physics'. The moon is a bog-standard planetary satellite (OK, it's on the large size for it's host planet, I'll give you that).

Pluto and Charon are tidally locked together - the same face of Charon always faces Pluto, and the same face of Pluto always faces Charon. This is due to the close similarity in size between the two, and the fact that the centre of gravity between the two bodies is actually in space between them. Mercury is tidally locked in a 3:2 rotation with the sun - it rotates 3 times for every two times it goes around the sun. This is also a stable configuration.

Just because you don't understand this stuff, doesn't mean it must be 'intelligent design'. These things are complicated. BUT - there's this wonderful tool called the Internet that has some great sites where you can at least obtain a basic understanding of how the world works (the people who write these went to university, and everything!).

Yep and a satellite is what? Is it intelligent design? It was put there.



A moon is what? ....unlike others, our moon wasn't pulled in, it was formed by what is still a theory.


http://www.space.com/12464-earth-moon-unique-solar-system-universe.html

 

[Wallaby]

Did you actually read the article you linked to?. Although it uses the word 'Unique' in the headline, the article actually states that 'less than 10 percent of terrestrial planets may have a satellite large enough to provide the stability life needs to develop' - ok - so 1 in 10.

The whole article is extrapolated from a computer study in which ' the team carried out 64 simulations that explored the sensitivity of moon formation to initial conditions, including the timescale for the dissipation of the solar nebula, the initial mass and radial distribution of planetismals, and the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Simulations started with 2,000 equal-mass particles placed between 0.5 and 4 astronomical units, with a total mass of planetismals five to ten times that of the Earth. The simulation creates merger trees that display the path to formation of the final system". Tricky stuff, eh?

Final conclusion: "Under the conditions of their simulation, Elser and his colleagues identified 88 moon-forming events in 64 simulations. On the average, every simulation gave three terrestrial planets with different masses and orbital characteristics. Out of the roughly 180 planets formed, almost one in two had an obliquity-stabilizing satellite in its orbit. For systems comparable to the Earth and Moon, there were 15 moon-forming collisions. That is, one in 12 terrestrial planets hosted a massive moon." So, no - not unique. Also says nothing about the moon being required for life to form on earth (it might - but this study didn't look at that at all).

Instead of just reading a headline, why not do a bit of follow-up research on things you don't understand? Self-education is a wonderful thing and can be done pretty easily these days. It took me about 3 mins googling to find a discussion about this study - and very interesting it is too. I might even look into it more. Here's the discussion paper I quoted :http://www.seti-setr.org/LivingPlanets/Moon/large_moon.html

Look - the world is complicated. It's much more complicated than most of us realise. It's not easy. No one comprehends it all. To start spouting off about magic gravity, simulations, 'I don't understand, so it must be intelligent design', and applying a child's definition of the word 'theory' to a scientific discussion is just.. ............ ................. .............well, perfectly suited to a flat-earth thread.

I give up. I pop into threads like this for a bit of a laugh at times, but when you point out basic idiotic errors in what people post and realise that they don't pay a blind bit of attention to it (they are happy to remain at their basic level of ignorance), you just suspect that certain people's 'intelligence' doesn't work the way you thought it did.

Oh, look: https://www.theguardian.com/science...ng-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study

 

[darthbards]

Yep and a satellite is what? Is it intelligent design? It was put there.



A moon is what? ....unlike others, our moon wasn't pulled in, it was formed by what is still a theory.


http://www.space.com/12464-earth-moon-unique-solar-system-universe.html

The moon is locked to the earth by computer code,just because people don't understand this doesn't mean it has to be locked some other way.
Yes it is intelligent design,computer code is intelligent,whoever created the computer code is intelligent.
Humans are not intelligent,yet,we are just arrogant.
We are currently still discovering things about what lives on our planet. That sounds like pretty solid evidence we don't yet know what's going on around us.

 

[NEGAN]

The moon is locked to the earth by computer code,just because people don't understand this doesn't mean it has to be locked some other way.

Forget the computer code for a moment.

Forget about it being tidal locked that's not my point

Think about this,

Our moon wasn't a celestial body pulled in, it was formed "by a collision" locked perfectly to a planet that is able to harbour life.

Think about it.

I won't discuss anymore as we are getting off topic.

 

[NEGAN]

Did you actually read the article you linked to?. Although it uses the word 'Unique' in the headline, the article actually states that 'less than 10 percent of terrestrial planets may have a satellite large enough to provide the stability life needs to develop' - ok - so 1 in 10.

The whole article is extrapolated from a computer study in which ' the team carried out 64 simulations that explored the sensitivity of moon formation to initial conditions, including the timescale for the dissipation of the solar nebula, the initial mass and radial distribution of planetismals, and the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Simulations started with 2,000 equal-mass particles placed between 0.5 and 4 astronomical units, with a total mass of planetismals five to ten times that of the Earth. The simulation creates merger trees that display the path to formation of the final system". Tricky stuff, eh?

Final conclusion: "Under the conditions of their simulation, Elser and his colleagues identified 88 moon-forming events in 64 simulations. On the average, every simulation gave three terrestrial planets with different masses and orbital characteristics. Out of the roughly 180 planets formed, almost one in two had an obliquity-stabilizing satellite in its orbit. For systems comparable to the Earth and Moon, there were 15 moon-forming collisions. That is, one in 12 terrestrial planets hosted a massive moon." So, no - not unique. Also says nothing about the moon being required for life to form on earth (it might - but this study didn't look at that at all).

Instead of just reading a headline, why not do a bit of follow-up research on things you don't understand? Self-education is a wonderful thing and can be done pretty easily these days. It took me about 3 mins googling to find a discussion about this study - and very interesting it is too. I might even look into it more. Here's the discussion paper I quoted :http://www.seti-setr.org/LivingPlanets/Moon/large_moon.html

Look - the world is complicated. It's much more complicated than most of us realise. It's not easy. No one comprehends it all. To start spouting off about magic gravity, simulations, 'I don't understand, so it must be intelligent design', and applying a child's definition of the word 'theory' to a scientific discussion is just.. ............ ................. .............well, perfectly suited to a flat-earth thread.

I give up. I pop into threads like this for a bit of a laugh at times, but when you point out basic idiotic errors in what people post and realise that they don't pay a blind bit of attention to it (they are happy to remain at their basic level of ignorance), you just suspect that certain people's 'intelligence' doesn't work the way you thought it did.

Oh, look: https://www.theguardian.com/science...ng-education-genes-rarer-says-icelandic-study

Did you actually read the article you linked to?. Although it uses the word 'Unique' in the headline, the article actually states that 'less than 10 percent of terrestrial planets may have a satellite large enough to provide the stability life needs to develop' - ok - so 1 in 10.

The whole article is extrapolated from a computer study in which ' the team carried out 64 simulations that explored the sensitivity of moon formation to initial conditions, including the timescale for the dissipation of the solar nebula, the initial mass and radial distribution of planetismals, and the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. Simulations started with 2,000 equal-mass particles placed between 0.5 and 4 astronomical units, with a total mass of planetismals five to ten times that of the Earth. The simulation creates merger trees that display the path to formation of the final system". Tricky stuff, eh?

Final conclusion: "Under the conditions of their simulation, Elser and his colleagues identified 88 moon-forming events in 64 simulations. On the average, every simulation gave three terrestrial planets with different masses and orbital characteristics. Out of the roughly 180 planets formed, almost one in two had an obliquity-stabilizing satellite in its orbit. For systems comparable to the Earth and Moon, there were 15 moon-forming collisions. That is, one in 12 terrestrial planets hosted a massive moon." So, no - not unique. Also says nothing about the moon being required for life to form on earth (it might - but this study didn't look at that at all).

Instead of just reading a headline, why not do a bit of follow-up research on things you don't understand? Self-education is a wonderful thing and can be done pretty easily these days. It took me about 3 mins googling to find a discussion about this study - and very interesting it is too. I might even look into it more. Here's the discussion paper I quoted :http://www.seti-setr.

I don't want derail this thread but I would continue in another thread this is the last I will say.

Someone like you is smart enough to know how highly improbable our moon is


When you take in the fact of the

size
the composition of the moon and earth
the tidal lock
the distance from the sun vs the moon size forming eclipses.
The orbit around earth
The stabilization of the axis

All based of a collision that saw the moon orbit our planet.
"Within our current understanding of planetary and satellite formation processes, each stage of lunar evolution is plausible. But, with the nested levels of dependency in a multi-stage model, is the probability of the required sequence of events vanishingly small? Is there an alternative solution of greater simplicity and universality? Ultimately, the current detailed interrogation of lunar origin may demand answers that have an unexpected level of complexity."

 

[darthbards]

I don't want derail this thread but I would continue in another thread this is the last I will say.

Someone like you is smart enough to know how highly improbable our moon is


When you take in the fact of the

size
the composition of the moon and earth
the tidal lock
the distance from the sun vs the moon size forming eclipses.
The orbit around earth
The stabilization of the axis

All based of a collision that saw the moon orbit our planet.
"Within our current understanding of planetary and satellite formation processes, each stage of lunar evolution is plausible. But, with the nested levels of dependency in a multi-stage model, is the probability of the required sequence of events vanishingly small? Is there an alternative solution of greater simplicity and universality? Ultimately, the current detailed interrogation of lunar origin may demand answers that have an unexpected level of complexity."

NEGAN,you keep thinking,you keep discussing and you keep learning via your heart,you will come to the right conclusion or the conclusions that best suit you.
Don't be bullied or growled at by these science folk. Yes it is all hard,yes it is complicated but they don't know the answers. No proof for the big bang,no proof for gravity,no proof for dark matter. They have no right to tell anyone they don't understand something or its to complicated until they themselves can provide proof.
I believe the simulation theory,mainly because I think it makes sense,I also think there is evidence all around us. People can waffle on all day about something else but until there is proof why should I believe them. They've been waffling on about the big bang created out of nothing my entire life yet can't prove it and then have the audacity to criticise people who may believe in creation.
Science is no less susceptible to brain washing as anything else.