Message from @[NWFLT]Leonidas Ceasar

Discord ID: 626803499283382273


2019-09-26 15:21:19 UTC  

point is that general relativity doesn't mesh with quantum theory

2019-09-26 15:21:20 UTC  

It would be safe to assume we are a digital recreation of an analog world.

2019-09-26 15:21:40 UTC  

they are good enough in their own right but not 'complete'

2019-09-26 15:21:41 UTC  

I'd say it's safe to assume we are not living

2019-09-26 15:21:59 UTC  

Because we are made of non living protons neutrons and electrons

2019-09-26 15:22:08 UTC  

that was the point of the video i posted; the best assumption is NO assumption

2019-09-26 15:23:03 UTC  

if one can't observe or measure something, it cannot be treated with the same weight as assertions we can prove USING conclusions drawn from actual measurement

2019-09-26 15:24:55 UTC  

every expression in general realitivity includes an assumed '+C' ; a degree of uncertainty meaning that the more removed we become from the actual measurement, the more that uncertainty is compounded

2019-09-26 15:25:51 UTC  

this becomes a problem at the exterma of the theory

2019-09-26 15:26:15 UTC  

@You are tearing me apart lisa we are all star stuff

2019-09-26 15:28:14 UTC  

Anyone ever hear of the proposed electro-static model of the universe

2019-09-26 15:29:26 UTC  

or consider that while the universe might be expanding and we might be peering back in time at stars that died long ago, the photons we see are only a few hours old?

2019-09-26 15:29:33 UTC  

relativity

2019-09-26 15:30:22 UTC  

We inhabit the space that was once held by our ancestors.

2019-09-26 15:30:45 UTC  

With IT comes some overheads.

2019-09-26 15:30:55 UTC  

true enough

2019-09-26 15:32:01 UTC  

maybe time just doesn't exist. it is just a reference frame between two static universes

2019-09-26 15:32:13 UTC  

Remove every star. We don't need em, they need us. Rise up!

2019-09-26 15:33:00 UTC  

The issue is, we can do maths

2019-09-26 15:33:12 UTC  

We can show dozens of models that look like they work

2019-09-26 15:33:19 UTC  

but we don't have ALL the info

2019-09-26 15:33:26 UTC  

the issue is, math isn't reality; it's just a model of it

2019-09-26 15:33:50 UTC  

so the missing pieces of that puzzle can't be filled in

2019-09-26 15:33:55 UTC  

and you can't say

2019-09-26 15:34:02 UTC  

"well this model won't work"

2019-09-26 15:34:03 UTC  

<:ManAnimal:512760276290895873>?

2019-09-26 15:34:22 UTC  

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898> <:pepegun:588019479401726001>

2019-09-26 15:34:35 UTC  

so you wind up with half a dozen models that may or may not work, but you need a 15 billion $ particle collider to solve.

2019-09-26 15:34:41 UTC  

Ah, we have more brits around

2019-09-26 15:34:42 UTC  

Just use 100% of your brain 4head

2019-09-26 15:34:49 UTC  

if each inertial reference frame has it's own 'rules', i.e. length and time constraction, then how do we apply the rules of our reference frame to the photon?

2019-09-26 15:34:52 UTC  

Who? Where? @PureEvilPie

2019-09-26 15:35:04 UTC  

A nice fucked country

2019-09-26 15:35:04 UTC  

Stfu britbong

2019-09-26 15:35:14 UTC  

your country

2019-09-26 15:35:17 UTC  

not ours

2019-09-26 15:35:18 UTC  

First past the post sucks cock tbh

2019-09-26 15:35:20 UTC  

we leeft

2019-09-26 15:35:23 UTC  

thank god

2019-09-26 15:35:25 UTC  

FPTP is shit yea