Please don't. The anti-science, anti-intellectualism anti-fact people that support those things will only make this place look bad
Have you looked around Memo? They are already here in full force. So far I have had to defend evolution, basic climate science, the shape/age of the earth, and much more on here.
Because you don't care about truth. You only care about protecting your paradigms based on propaganda rather than cold hard facts.
I've found that the best way to increase on-chain transactions these days is to disagree with someone on memo.
Except for the Flat Earth topic.
Yeah that's a good point. It's better to just leave those guys alone lol
Too scared that the truth might shackles all your warm and comfortable paradigms?
What "truth"? 😂😂😂
The one you fear 😂😂😂
You really are a trash poster lol
Do you tink the world is flatish?
All I know is that I don't know for lack of any convincing proofs.
You mean in either direction of flat earth or spherical earth?
a distance which one medieval popular text estimates as a hundred and seventeen million miles.” - C.S. Lewis
Hey! I made it here from Reddit :) thanks for inspiring me to make the switch!
boooyahhhhh, enjoy yourself!
Ptolemy had told them that the Earth was a mathematical point without size in relation to the distance of the fixed stars —
“You will read in some books that the men of the Middle Ages thought the Earth flat and the stars near, but that is a lie. . .
I disagree with your memo. Just kidding.
I disagree lol.
HOW DARE YOU!!!
I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!!
YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER REEKED OF ELDER BERRIES.
That's my point, I think it is all the work of a few people to make this place look shady. Don't give up!
(cont.) Add to that the fact that we represent a minority faction within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and I think it's easy to see that a lot of us are just crazy lol.
Unfortunately, I doubt it. I've been around Bitcoin since 2013, it's a space that attracts "free thinkers" - who are mostly fringe groups, conspiracy theorists, and straight up nuts.
You do know that you cannot disprove that the Universe revolves around the Earth?
You also can't disprove that a magical gnome is deciding the entire fate of the universe from a tree made of cookies, but that isn't how science works. It's what you can prove.
A tree made of cookies? That's ridiculous.
"Prove" is an extremely loaded word. Everything we think we know about anything is theoretical. Science = "evedence seems to support the hypothesis". Even Einstein may be wrong.
It is important to understand the difference between a law and theory. Laws are WHAT happened. Theories are WHY it happened. Laws are provable. Theories are not.
Name one single "law" that's proven.
Laws are simply observations of phenomena. Gravity is very easily proven. The theories behind WHY it happens, when/where it applies, etc. are not “proven”
I do not need to study anything to observe that gravity exists. Science is making itself important to create authorities. Mathematics is the only science that is really useful/proven.
Oh but Physics is mother of all sciences, mathematics is like the language
Physics is based on Mathematics. How can physics be the mother if it depends on mathematics? Language are letters and words which describe mathematics.
Its other way around, mathematics is language to represent the natural laws, which are laws of Physics.
Ok I give up you reject logic thinking out of pure stubbornness.
This is logical thinking, natural law is the rule which is laws of Physics, which is explained with mathematics.
Child needs mother to be born. Nature doesnt need physics. Mathematics doesnt need physics. Physics needs both of them to exist. There you see who is the mother and who is the child.
Mathematics is a language... it is used to describe natural laws, which is laws of Physics.
Mathematics isn't even a science...
If every piece of matter in the universe doesn't obey it consistently 100% it's a pretty lousy law. The devil's always in the details! That's why we have magic stuff like dark matter.
... probably impossible to ever actually observe first hand.
Exactly. That's why the words "prove" and "law" are just not very helpful. As if the universe obeys the slight electrical impulses in a few groups of atoms on one random planet.
It's impossible to say that anything will apply to every "piece of matter". The best we can do is define patterns in what we can observe. Many theories involve phenomena that are...
Most science is not based on observation but on false assumptions and people who believe in books more than in their own ability to think logical. Modern science creates sheeps.
I'm genuinely not sure if you are being satirical or not.
Einstein was especially probably wrong. Remember that Einstein didn't do much science. He did a lot of math and thinking, theorizing connections btwn existing scientific laws.
Probably wrong, but he is still right until proven wrong. Right now, he is very right
theory of relativity over time (dropping cosmo. constant, grav waves, etc.). He didn't one day think he figured it all out and write a formula/theory which is yet to be proven wrong.
Einstein was often wrong, even by his own admission. Such is the nature of working on such complex and ultimately abstract theories. For example, he changed numerous aspects of his...
You can't prove that the Universe does not revolve around the Earth given Relativity. Or do you think you can? Please educate me.
However, iirc, it generally appears to be expanding at the same speed away from us in every direction, and has no spin, thus revolves around nothing.
Some have theorized that the quantized red-shift corresponds with excited/falling electron orbitals instead of speed. Makes sense but that'd mean earth is in the middle of the universe
There's a high probability that the Earth is the center of our universe (that would be consistent with the theory that we're 'living' in a simulation. One of 'many' simulations)
"The simulation" is a PC term for intelligent design. If you believe in the simulation you necessarily must believe in a simulator. Then you have to talk about that being's character.
Not a being, just the first base reality human beings. They run simulations on their origins and development with altered variables for various reasons.
I mean you realize this ultra smart "human being" who's running this simulation made the simlatees(us) in their own image? You're just describing Christianity.
"Ultra Smart" for us, but base reality Humans (plural) advanced millions of years beyond us should easily be able to create simulations to analyze alternate progressions.
Riddle me this - what physical laws govern the universe that "base reality Humans" inhabit? Are they not just the ones you wish that this universe had but apparently doesn't?
I would guess the physical laws would be similar, but maybe some quantum principles and effects may not exist in base reality. They may be quirks, or artifacts of the simulations.
What's your motivation for believing we live in/are a simulation?
Frustum culling equalling quantum uncertainty, speed of light limit/"limit"
What do you think about wave theory? I think I like it because it wrecks a lot of the dumb cosmological models.
I have not read much about it. I'll look into it thanks
haha wow guys. op was about infowars being banned. & you've ended up talking about if were in a simulation. lol love how meandering memo discussions are.
Ahhhh, so your God is technology. Though somehow our "true selves" have managed to simulate consciousness in us but avoid an AI singularity? Very interesting religion you got there.
Personally i think we are base reality. But there's a real probability of living in a sim. I don't think an AI singularity will happen, but if so the AI would be running the sim(s)
So a human being is not a being?
stuff that has given us us a better understanding of the universes shape / it's center? I feel like probably have. (and I probably should've learned this in astronomy class haha)
Interesting. I know red shift is how we first suspected an expanding universe, but is there further evidence from studying cosmic radiation background (really old light) or other...
I'm not an expert in astrophysics, but my limit understanding of the matter is that we have not yet conclusively proven the shape or movement "direction" of the universe.
