Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2020, 09:33:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 [738] 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 ... 802 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Flat Earth  (Read 1093821 times)
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 23, 2019, 11:12:51 PM
Last edit: June 23, 2019, 11:36:34 PM by notbatman
 #14741

No, no you can use for example a Nikon P1000 with an angular resolution limit in the seconds, at ~6 feet an eye with a 1 second resolution limit can see a ~1 foot object up to ~180 nautical miles away (if the atmosphere was removed). My calculations allow for any eye to be used, I just chose the human eye because there's 1 nautical mile per 1 minute, it's the standard.

The Sun and Moon are measuring ~3,100 nautical miles away, not millions. You claim they're millions of miles away and thus a 100 million dollar telescope is needed for accuracy but you're begging the question (petitio principii).

Stop assuming the Copernican model is correct, it's cut from the same cloth as evolution...

1600939992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600939992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600939992
Reply with quote  #2

1600939992
Report to moderator
1600939992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600939992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600939992
Reply with quote  #2

1600939992
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1600939992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600939992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600939992
Reply with quote  #2

1600939992
Report to moderator
1600939992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600939992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600939992
Reply with quote  #2

1600939992
Report to moderator
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 24, 2019, 12:22:02 AM
 #14742

No, no you can use for example a Nikon P1000 with an angular resolution limit in the seconds, at ~6 feet an eye with a 1 second resolution limit can see a ~1 foot object up to ~180 nautical miles away (if the atmosphere was removed). My calculations allow for any eye to be used, I just chose the human eye because there's 1 nautical mile per 1 minute, it's the standard.

The Sun and Moon are measuring ~3,100 nautical miles away, not millions. You claim they're millions of miles away and thus a 100 million dollar telescope is needed for accuracy but you're begging the question (petitio principii).

Stop assuming the Copernican model is correct, it's cut from the same cloth as evolution...


Your camera and 180 miles? You have a reasonably good telescope there in that camera.

The moon isn't millions of miles away. Easy to do calculations, that you can do yourself, show that the moon is about 250,000 miles away. These calculations use trig and parallaxes... with a partner if you want to get the measurement down in one night. There is no eyeballing about it... so, no eyeballing limitations.

The sun is a little different. But you can easily look up the parallax/trig methods on the Net if you want to do it yourself. You probably won't be as accurate small-scale as the professional astronomers. But you will see that it is millions of miles... with no eyeballing limitations about it.

There aren't any assumptions in trig, and you don't have to depend on un-clarity of sight, hoping that the telescopic lens on your camera will make up the difference.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 12:43:13 AM
 #14743

@BADecker,

   Measuring with a sextant isn't fucking "eyeballing it", you're throwing out direct measurement of the Sun and Moon, pretending it's not possible then giving a lame answer from NASA that's absolute bullshit. If the they're both 32 miles wide and both 3100 miles high then a sextant and the human eye work just fine for making an approximate measurement. You have to beg the question about the distance to the Sun and Moon being millions and hundreds of thousands miles away to table your parallax bullshit.

Go crawl in the oven and shut the door behind you.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 24, 2019, 12:51:21 AM
 #14744

@BADecker,

   Measuring with a sextant isn't fucking "eyeballing it", you're throwing out direct measurement of the Sun and Moon, pretending it's not possible then giving a lame answer from NASA that's absolute bullshit.

Go crawl in the oven and shut the door behind you.


Measuring with a sextant is half eyeballing it. The sextant angle and line of sight are not eyeball things. The assumption that the distance is an eye-accurate/measurement-accurate thing is eyeballing it.

The "flatter" thing is that you would get upset because someone can show you the flaws in your thinking. The fact that you get upset shows that you are hanging onto religious/philosophical principles regarding FE. Religious motivations are strong motivations. So, you are forgiven - even pitied - for your bad language.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 12:53:35 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2019, 01:55:27 AM by notbatman
 #14745

^^^ I'm upset because you're being intellectually dishonest.


@odolvlobo,

   I'll do up a diagram for measuring the Sun and Moon (this may take me a while), the 3100 mile distance calc was not done by me so I'll do it and see what I get. BTW don't confuse angle U and angle X, only with angle X does 1 minute = 1 nautical mile. With the Sun and Moon however atmospheric refraction keeps them the same size all the way to the horizon so X may in fact equal U for these two objects. Their distance makes an accurate measurement in this manner difficult, as BAD keeps pointing out however, an error in measurement of few miles doesn't save the globe.

odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 01:46:20 AM
 #14746

@odolvlobo,
   I'll do up a diagram for measuring the Sun and Moon (this may take me a while), the 3100 mile distance calc was not done by me so I'll do it and see what I get. BTW don't confuse angle U and angle X, only with angle X does 1 minute = 1 nautical mile.

My math was wrong, so I deleted the post.

Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.io
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 24, 2019, 04:50:23 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2019, 03:07:03 PM by BADecker
 #14747

^^^ I'm upset because you're being intellectually dishonest.


(Chuckle) As long as you can't show accuracy by eyeballing, why should it bother me at all? You are the one stuck with your religion and cult.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 02:41:51 PM
Last edit: June 24, 2019, 03:59:38 PM by notbatman
 #14748

My first attempt at calculating the distance to the Sun resulted in a height of 3068.4 nautical miles. I'm still going over the calculations...
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 24, 2019, 03:08:05 PM
 #14749

^^^ Write down every particle of your calc, and once you finish it, show it to us.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 04:31:50 PM
Last edit: June 26, 2019, 02:37:21 PM by notbatman
 #14750

This is what I've got so far:

[image]

edit:

Removed image/calculation due to horrific errors, I must have mixed up my notes.
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 05:08:27 PM
Last edit: June 24, 2019, 05:47:35 PM by odolvlobo
 #14751

There is an inconsistency. If Q is 59.73 degrees and E is 1.99 nm and the angle marked 90 degrees is 90 degrees, then Z can't be 3068 nm.

Z = E x tan Q = 1.99 x 1.73 = 3.4 nm


I think you are making it overly complex. If the apparent size of the sun is 32 minutes and it is 32 nm wide, then the distance to the sun can be calculated with this:

distance = width / 2 / tan(angle / 2) = 32 / 2 / tan(0.533 / 2) = 3438 nm


Now that you know the distance to the sun, you can calculate its height:

height = distance * sin(Q) = 3438 * sin(59.73) = 2969 nm

There is a problem. If the sun is always 32 nm wide, then it must always be 3438 nm away, and if it is always 3438 nm then its height changes as Q changes. In other words, all three - width, height, and distance, cannot be constant.


Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.io
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 24, 2019, 05:40:43 PM
 #14752

This is what I've got so far:



The snag in your equation is the eye's limit. If you use a telescope, the limit is reduced. The increased distance changes the angles and increases the distance and diameter of the sun. Since these things can be increased with increased vision, the whole formula collapses until you use maximum vision acuity. You only get this by getting within eye-limits of the sun.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 24, 2019, 07:15:35 PM
Last edit: June 26, 2019, 02:41:43 PM by notbatman
 #14753

Keep in mind that I'm combining angles from both physical space and optical space and the diagram is less than clear in this regard. R & T also need to be moved over to the left side.

let me go over the possible inconsistencies, I was overcome with fatigue for no particular reason and passed out for 5 hours after posting that...


edit:

There is an inconsistency. If Q is 59.73 degrees and E is 1.99 nm and the angle marked 90 degrees is 90 degrees, then Z can't be 3068 nm.

Z = E x tan Q = 1.99 x 1.73 = 3.4 nm


I think you are making it overly complex. If the apparent size of the sun is 32 minutes and it is 32 nm wide, then the distance to the sun can be calculated with this:

distance = width / 2 / tan(angle / 2) = 32 / 2 / tan(0.533 / 2) = 3438 nm


Now that you know the distance to the sun, you can calculate its height:

height = distance * sin(Q) = 3438 * sin(59.73) = 2969 nm

There is a problem. If the sun is always 32 nm wide, then it must always be 3438 nm away, and if it is always 3438 nm then its height changes as Q changes. In other words, all three - width, height, and distance, cannot be constant.



First point, the distance to the sun can't be calculated from the sun's apparent size alone. As you can see I didn't use "I" or "U" at all in my calculation at all, only "Q" and "A".

Second point, like I mentioned there are two spaces combined into a single diagram/calculation. The left side is mostly optical space for calculating physical distance (X=angular size) and the right is mostly physical space for calculating optical angles (U=apparent size).

I hope my second point makes sense.

The square angle triangle formed by E-Z-O is apparent and Z can't be calculated on this side. The square angle triangle formed by D-Z-[unlabelled leg between sun and horizon] is physical and the distance is calculated on this side. The square angle triangle [unlabelled leg between horizon and the ground below the sun]-V-D is where the physical angle to the sun is calculated. So the left side is actually two triangles with P = T.

If that makes sense.

Finally the sun is always 32 minutes wide due to refraction and maintains the same diameter as if it was at 90° because of it. As you can see the calculations for the angular size (X) have not been completed yet. In the case of the sun and moon here X will equal U and refraction plays a role such that a refracted optical space is created in addition to the physical and optical spaces.

If that makes sense you get an award!

Overly complex, no, no not exactly...



@BADecker,

  I could be wrong but I think the aspect ratio is maintained when changing the resolution limit.




edit:
I updated the image to include the calculation for Z, I didn't realize it was missing. I also made a few other adjustments.
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2996
Merit: 1660



View Profile
June 25, 2019, 01:28:06 AM
 #14754

Keep in mind that I'm combining angles from both physical space and optical space and the diagram is less than clear in this regard. R & T also need to be moved over to the left side.

First point, the distance to the sun can't be calculated from the sun's apparent size alone. As you can see I didn't use "I" or "U" at all in my calculation at all, only "Q" and "A".

You can if you know the effect of refraction. Do you know how to compute that?

...
Finally the sun is always 32 minutes wide due to refraction and maintains the same diameter as if it was at 90° because of it. As you can see the calculations for the angular size (X) have not been completed yet. In the case of the sun and moon here X will equal U and refraction plays a role such that a refracted optical space is created in addition to the physical and optical spaces.

I see. The sun appears to have the same size because of refraction. That raises a question for me. Why are the sun and moon affected by refraction in this way, but other objects are not?

Buy stuff on Amazon with BTC or convert Amazon points to BTC here: Purse.io
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 25, 2019, 01:49:41 AM
 #14755


Finally the sun is always 32 minutes wide due to refraction and maintains the same diameter as if it was at 90° because of it.


Even if the sun is always 32 minutes wide, using a telescope directed at the sun shows far greater perspective than using the eyes alone. You have agreed with this in former posts.

This shows that neither the eyes or the telescope are necessarily accurate. A different method is necessary, one that determines either the distance or the size of the sun. It has to be far more accurate than the eyes or even the telescope. This is what modern astronomy has accomplished. It is also why your calc fails.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 645


View Profile
June 25, 2019, 06:25:22 AM
 #14756

https://deadstate.org/biblical-flat-earth-society-founder-is-charged-with-56-counts-of-child-porn/

Fundamentalist Christian and self-proclaimed founder of the “Biblical Flat Earth Society,” Phillip Stephen Stallings, was arrested this week and charged with 56 counts of child sexual exploitation, as reported by local news station WTDV.

The 40-year-old Durham, North Carolina resident is facing dozens of charges for sexually exploiting minors for allegedly downloading media that involved minors engaged in sexual situations and sharing this illegal media on social platforms.

He was arrested on Wednesday morning at his home by Durham County deputies as a part of a U.S. Department of Homeland Security investigation, according to WRAL.com.

“It’s part of an investigation across the nation right now for possession of child pornography and creation of child pornography,” said Durham County Assistant District Attorney Kendra Montgomery-Blinn during a short court hearing on Thursday morning. “They had information that Mr. Stallings was sharing his materials on a social media platform.”

Stallings faces 28 counts of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor and 28 counts of third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor after being caught with child pornography. He has also been served with a warrant related to both cyberstalking and financial card theft.


Not a surprise really, these people and religious extremists are the same scum. They are able to believe in stupid shit easily, they probably think its totally fine or even good to have sex with children, they are all degenerates and this not even an isolated case, priests abuse children all the time, its not a coincidence.
I also wonder where is god when all that happens, perhaps busy taking care of the projectors of the sun and the moon.

\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 25, 2019, 06:39:37 AM
 #14757

Keep in mind that I'm combining angles from both physical space and optical space and the diagram is less than clear in this regard. R & T also need to be moved over to the left side.

First point, the distance to the sun can't be calculated from the sun's apparent size alone. As you can see I didn't use "I" or "U" at all in my calculation at all, only "Q" and "A".

You can if you know the effect of refraction. Do you know how to compute that?

...
Finally the sun is always 32 minutes wide due to refraction and maintains the same diameter as if it was at 90° because of it. As you can see the calculations for the angular size (X) have not been completed yet. In the case of the sun and moon here X will equal U and refraction plays a role such that a refracted optical space is created in addition to the physical and optical spaces.

I see. The sun appears to have the same size because of refraction. That raises a question for me. Why are the sun and moon affected by refraction in this way, but other objects are not?


No, no, no and no! You can not calculate the distance to the sun or moon from just apparent size you have to have another object, in this case I used the horizon. Atmospheric refraction is not another object.

Refraction can be determined by calculating the sun or moon's apparent size and position then comparing them with measured values. The difference will be the effect of refraction.

The sun and moon are affected by atmospheric refraction because there are layers of different density gases below them and they causes the light to change direction.

Other objects, what other objects? Stars are points of light and remain points of light after being refracted.



@BADecker,

   Accuracy is irrelevant for determining approximate values. The fact you throw the baby out with the bathwater showcases your intellectual dishonesty.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1206


View Profile
June 25, 2019, 07:19:53 AM
 #14758


@BADecker,

   Accuracy is irrelevant for determining approximate values. The fact you throw the baby out with the bathwater showcases your intellectual dishonesty.

Accuracy in approximations of approximations is always relevant. Regarding the distances we are talking about, you are off by about 93 million miles or so, which means you are off by around 3 million percent or so.

But this is totally acceptable for anyone who wants to believe the earth is flat. Notice that I said "wants to." I could be wrong. You might simply be a promoter of something you don't believe in, for nefarious reasons.

Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
June 25, 2019, 08:13:56 AM
 #14759

^^^ You think it's fucking reasonable to believe that we're stuck to the surface of a spinning ball in a vacuum orbiting a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb in an endless virtually empty universe created by nothing exploding for no reason?

The only way anybody could possibly believe any of that shit is if they were indoctrinated and brainwashed from birth.
lightlord
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2800
Merit: 1115


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2019, 11:57:10 AM
Last edit: June 25, 2019, 12:26:01 PM by lightlord
 #14760

^^^ You think it's fucking reasonable to believe that we're stuck to the surface of a spinning ball in a vacuum orbiting a million-mile wide thermonuclear bomb in an endless virtually empty universe created by nothing exploding for no reason?

The only way anybody could possibly believe any of that shit is if they were indoctrinated and brainwashed from birth.

Occam's Razor, the universe as a quantum fluctuation, that at some point in 10^10^10^10 years, however, there is no time before the universe, so the concept of this is rather meaningless. That the right quantum fluctuation created an explosion so large known as the big bang. The asymmetry between anti-matter and matter, "The LHCb data revealed a significant level of asymmetries in those CP-violation-sensitive quantities for the Λb0and Λb0-bar baryon decays, with differences in some cases as large as 20%." as in regards to the Large Hadron Collider. However the preliminary findings are level of 3.3 standard deviations, so about 99.9%+ usually it warrants a 5 standard deviation.

Explains why the result isn't 1-1 or a total of 0, but something other than 0. Hence you get stars, galaxies. Billions of years and trillions of planets to conduct random mixing paves the way for the chance of life. And a documentary shows that mixing a bunch of elements together in a certain fashion and environment can arrive at a pre-state for life. Do this a trillion-trillion times, it becomes much more likely that one time results in the needed outcome for life. From 100 billion possible places on a single planet to 100 billion in a galaxy, to 100 billion galaxies in the universe. So you got 10^11*10^11*10^11, or 10^33 as in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Possible attempts at achieving life.

From there, replication, and variation paves the way to life, and evolution to us. A single-thing as pre-cell replicates a billion times, say 99.9999% dies, you are left with 1000, which are just different enough in variation to survive, and they copy themselves. Some are losing the ability to copy, and others maintaining it, over time, you get variation and change. Where some change and variation is better than others. These better variations take over and continue, ones that find consuming another within their cluster as an energy source is an more optimal method, paves for more complex versions, of them running away from each other, and a form of competition, speed, and shape (Survival of the fittest). Which continues and cointunes, perhaps in size, and cooperation is more optimal, which paves the way to the first simple organisms.

Size, is more optimal, which keeps going on for 100s of millions of years, as it takes a loooooong time to get anywhere. You get simple sex-tiny things and a form of cooperation, in a way to life. Paves to larger, and larger, then eventually fish like life. Life can tend to want to spread around, so one that escaped and went on to land, at a start had that advantage, that the one in the sea didn't. These again, competition, speed, shape, form, eventually intelligence to plan against another became an advantage. To simple creatures, to mammals, to larger faster. Upright, cooperation, and eventually early humans, humans, civilization, and us today.
*I skipped like 99.999999% in between here, but basically the concept.

To say that we are existing in a beginning state of the universe a magical super being, that created this dome around a flat planet, is starting from a top-down approach saying that God created everything. And why specifically this super-being created Flat Earth only and nothing else? Why not square earth, Cube Earth, alternate dimension, etc? Why a complicated metallic dome holographic around a flat plane? And nothing else? And why is your concept right, and no others is?

When bottom-up, from a single point, skipping the need for the convenience and explanation of how everything works. So out of nowhere, this so-called being popped into existence said "Hey" I want to create flat earth, with a dome around it, and it will be populated by a 5 pointed intelligent organism, 1 head, 2 arms, 2 legs, for the lols.

It's the same as if you threw 50 coins on a table at once, and expected all of them to land on the side. It will tend to result in the simplest most common approach. You are the one that is brained washed with all this nonsense.



.
.BIG WINNER!.
[15.00000000 BTC]


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Pages: « 1 ... 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 [738] 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 ... 802 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!