they are legally not able to offer consent

literally what the age of consent means, it is the age which a person can consent to having sex

Also kids don't get gay from watching gay people, sexuality is more inate than wanting a bike

As it becomes more acceptable more people come out, you don't cone out if you think your family will kick you out or abandon you

^^

Same amount of people are gay and trans as ever they just feel more comfortable living their lives

ya but the point is how the brain is wired at those really young ages doesn't in most cases create the bonds/connects to sexuality

Source?

23 years on earth and common sense. no 8 year old is thinking about ramming some ham

Yeah fair enough with the ham thing, but you don't know about how sexuality develops

well you don't hit puberty for nothing

plus why do you think "half" the conspiracies in regards to the chemicals and additives in shit pushing puberty earlier and earlier

You don't need chemicals to trigger puberty

You're telling me you didn't have crushes when you were a kid?

Like when you were 5-8 harmless crushes completely unsexual just really liking someone

lol i had a gf in grade 6 so ya i know what your saying; but thats not a product of "sexuality" it wasn't about being horney.... it was just two kids being friends hanging out and doing cute stuff to feel good.

Brah

I’m getting DOULBE U-s today

lol wat

so with so many truther's (27) on at the moment; i kinda wanna ask. What is your definition of the "highest" meaningful truths you've obtained and know to be obtainable?

i define reality as the set of all your experiences and thaughts
A theory is the current best known idea/model that best correlates with reality and with less importance is minimally complex.
fact is equal to the current theory.
Truth is equal to the theory that isn't nessarily minimally complex and that correlates with reality perfectly.

@Σ5 so the nature of a "projected/holographic" universe is a topic you've dug into? since its the pinical of scientific thoery; and explains most of spirituality; not to mention the "weirdness" aclaimed through the occult; but ties it all together within the root of experiences themselves (including dreams)

No

well consider scientificly all "matter" of the known universe is in essence light/energy held/bound by an unknown force within a freqency that causes it to bind/reacte on scales that produce phisics/matter etc we are in essence just an expression of a wave of energy experincing a fragmented stream through a lense of senses/biology etc; so really a lot of occult views of spiruality in essence reflect many views that describe the same system but the sources being rather more divine than just "there" because they are

No

....these no's are great and all but some hobo who found jesus would say the same thing; hell half the people who look into things from one side say nearly the same thing; so what views/understandings compleatly define this as a no. because while I'm not talking in absoulutes these terms often have many depths i could get into....

Ok

@Σ5 you trolling? or are 2 letters all you can build upon here? i'm fishing for lengthy posts; set me straight lol i'm dying to hear other views/explinations post a few walls for me please lol

no

You need to start on single subjects

"projected/holographic" universe

I don't believe it

so can you build upon that; because the 99.99999999% of people that don't understand why its a 99.99999999% chance it is the reality often do so because they don't understand "it".... can you provide the cornerstone beliefes that make this so?

00.00000001% of the world population isnt even 1 person

so no one knows the truth

:3

thanks captain cereal pants **points to the door**

*looks at the door* nice door

lol of course your one of those people that have no understanding of unspoken meanings... its no wonder your non-seeking

*looks as the jokes sails over J's head and into the corner of left field*

haha but the irony of the double joke of being an asshole made you provide the obviouse joke of double checkers vs the chest masta

the point was you are on this server yet fail to seek most of what is found.... like as in anything beyond the mainstream

neat

I don't believe it because I never been exposed to sufficient reason to believe so

burdon of proof is on you

what about the bourbon proof?

@Σ5 i kinda just gave the broad points that are fundemental parts of science and essoteric/occult knowledge.... these are really general terms you could google, hell even the double slit experiment points this out. (being that even light is both a partical and a wave at once; but under observation colapses into just a partical rather than a wave expression) honestly you have these absolute NO's that are only a product of ignorance; take these seeds and seek fourth. when and if you do i'll be here for questions, and to set you upon other roads... perhaps

not really what it says but, what ever

@DrPeper honestly if a old guy with more degree's than a cod plays trick shots says that and more I'm more willing to bet his take on it is right compaired to the guy who plays fortnight and only provides his edgy 16 year old views of what he's learned in highschool....

i will say, you arent totally wrong, but you arent completely right. Light travels in a wave of probability, that their is only a certain probably that light is at a point in space. However when you observe it, you forced to be in one spot

....ya thats kinda what i said but the way your saying it isn't right you make it sound like the theory when light itself is already just a stream of particals; the point was "they" produce a wave spread pattern as if bouncing off each other when launched one by one; but under a sensory between the openings of each slit they no longer produce the wave spread even tho the same input is being turned on..... this is what i mean by most people don't grasp it

same input; single light particals being launched
but when the slits are being observed it produces a different imprint upon the back sensor.... reality litteraly acts differently under observation... as if a computer uses wave form probability because its far easier then rendering every partical of light

its topics like this that are just the start of what i was hoping people on these kinda servers where ready to talk about.... not having to mention it as if its new

There is a statistically identical quantum mechanics model called De Broglie–Bohm theory

It's deterministic

and a particle is never a wave

It's always a particle

But it's guided by a wavefunction

so what does the changing spread/interference patern from a intermediary sensor mean to you; or you just gonna dance around the whole point here

classical quantum mechanics skips the complex math to get to the jist of what you should expect

the interference pattern acirding to De Broglie–Bohm theory is just the addition of 2 spherical waves (2 cilendar waves if it's 2 slits instead of holes)

The particle travels thru only one hole but is guided by the wavefunction to it's destination

so your still dancing around the big critical point here.... being the change in sensor data from the back plate by the introduction of a sensor at the slits....

An interneduary sensor nessarily has to interact in order to sense

thats kinda the whole point....

So it's nessary outcome that it does modify the outgoing wave

an observer turns light from wave to partical; and reality simulates itself as such

not according to De Broglie–Bohm theory

The sensor modifies the wave function that the particle follows

this effect happens even if a being doesn't look at it

a sensor nessarily has to interact

Otherwise what are you receiving to sense?

equal and opposite reaction

If the electron interacts with the sensor then the sensor interacts with the electron

It's not a matter of simulation but just a simple outcome of the equations

Yes the equations can be simulated but so can any other equation

but then again your talking about something we can do in this reality, simulate

so what your saying is everybody who's ever had a confrence on this in general was speaking compleate bullshit out there ass all because they don't understand that its all the sensors falt.....

Yes

All sensors are intrusive to some level

And at tge scale of electrons the smallest intrusion is large

are there any phd's or direct sources that tell you exactly this aspect of what everybody was/is talking about is the way you see it; because quite honestly it just sounds like your taking one aspect of the project thats built into it on a whole and using it as a justification to throw away the rest

no

I did only mention De Broglie–Bohm theory as an unrelated alternative to the probabilistic model

it's stasltisticly identical tho

@Sasowa "They" assume many things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It's also impossible to detect a particle without nessarily interacting with it

but your saying that the whole problem being that the wave form from both slits interacting with each other "bouncing" creating an interferince patern upon the back plate/sensor when no sensors are at the slits then shifting to a scatter shot as if from a gun when a sensory is placed upon the slits is only a product of the eqipment interfearing with the particals and not from the fact there's an observer.... because it sounds like your asuming you know the form of tecknology they use has to interact with the light partical..... do you know the structure of the sensory setup?

@realFlatEarther what?

As I said it's impossible to detect a particle without interacting with it

honestly at this point you sound like @DrPeper just talking from main stream bs that you honestly don't understand and are grasping at related straws

it's a nessesary outcome of the equations

but that interaction isn't of the same scale/product as what we are talking about....

o/

your logic is flawed @Σ5 "stuff" don't just interact and explain away the entire point of an experinment.....

so you dont believe in the uncertainty principle J?

never really read into it to my knowning; link?

it's not flawed logic if the equations literally predict it