Yeah, you’d think there was a snail. It’s an understandable conclusion that throws a lot of people off. See, the toroidal spirality of the a snail’s shell-shapification is suggestive of Sacred Geometry and Phi which all gets back to the Fibonacci sequence. But what you haven’t yet realized is that, if you stand on one foot in a 6-dimensional plane, the fifth number of the main sequence- when turned on its side!- is really 12. Once you wrap your head around that you’ll get the rest.
But yeah… I also went through a “snail phase” so I won’t be too hard on you.
Interesting. So the people who frequent science forums are the ones least interested in discussing matters of reality about which they are unfamiliar. Science has poor representatives it seems. I suppose that should be expected since it’s probably more difficult to pretend being smart than it is to pretend being religious or to be skeptical of everything. But it is disappointing all the same.
I’ll be more clear then. I WANT you all to tell me how and why I’m wrong. By all means, rip the content of my words to shreds - or rather attempt to do so. Best case scenario, you disprove a nutcase and have a good laugh about it. Or, you could actually flex your grey matter and relearn how to learn. Isn’t that what discourse is all about? Or has it truly devolved to circle jerks between groups of people who can’t follow a summary of a kindergarten course in higher-dimensional reality? Does your mother still chew your food and slice your peanut butter sandwiches for you as well? I can break it down further if necessary, but you’d be even more lost.
If you’re confused on something, then ask. Specifics would be helpful, as your actual knowledge of reality is hilariously limited. Strutting around with your chests puffed out and according to your own calculations, you’re only studying less than 1% of reality known as “visible light within the tunnel of your universe.” You don’t even know the difference between time and space…these are kindergarten subjects in most timelines. 8 planets? Seriously? How can you possibly differentiate between a planet and a moon if you can’t differentiate between Mars and a gas giant? How are you possibly considering these to be the same sort of object, just because from you perspective they all APPEAR to be orbiting around the Sun in the center?
Which part of my post was unclear? Do you in fact observe reality in something other than two-dimensional surface areas of solid objects? Is the asteroid belt actually just debris left by a destroyed planet merely because you heard it from a guy with a tie about his neck and horn-rimmed spectacles? Despite the blindingly obvious fact that RIGHT after this point (which just so happens to span an area as large as the distance between the Sun and the start of the asteroid belt, about 2.5AU), suddenly all the planets become inverted gas giants all of which have their own ring systems and several lunar mass moons. Ironically, after the Kuiper Belt (which just so happens to span a distance similar to the distance between the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt, about 25AU), the inversion re-inverts and all the “dwarf planets” are rocky again. Outer Space is easy to decode if you understand what it IS…Chalk it up to coincidence if you want, or you can actually grow a pair, challenge me directly, and maybe even learn something in the process.
The hubris displayed by you all is legendary. 20 posts and not a single example of a disputed statement made. You all can certainly do better than this.
Until tomorrow, gentlemen. At least try this time…I’ll wager you’ll be satisfied with the results if you do. Challenge yourself. You can’t ALL be beyond hope. I hope not.
Actually, that’s a long-discredited theory. As best anyone can tell, there never was a single planet there; interaction with Jupiter prevented coalescence of precursor bodies into a single planet, and most of the original mass in that region was expelled from it (either to outside the solar system or into collisions with other planets). It’s a popular idea still in science fiction, though.
I’ll give a go at “tearing everything to shreds” as requested, and see how far I get before boredom and/or brain aneurism stops me.
These are not premises. These are assertions that need to be backed up with evidence. A premise is something that all participants can agree is true without further debate. As you will see, none of these three things falls into this category.
We can quite obviously see in three dimensions. Evidence: lack of depth perception when one eye is closed. If you have counter evidence, please present it.
What we call dimensions are dimensions. They are determined by measuring things in various ways. Evidence: my ruler. To the best of my reasoning, the phrase “inversion of inside and outside” is meaningless outside of the context of folding laundry, as is the reference to numbers.
We call what effect relativity? Your pronoun has no antecedent. Your claim to have a new explanation for what “manufactures reality” is extraordinary, and must be backed up by extensive evidence. Such evidence is not presented. This statement is meaningless.
In what way is it “better” to define the 4th dimension in this way? Why is it better? What is your evidence that such a point of view more accurately represents external reality?
You are completely misusing the name “dark matter”. Dark matter as understood by - and indeed invented by - physicists and cosmologists has nothing whatsoever to do with the internal volume of otherwise normal physical objects.
If this were true, we would see reflections when we look into space. We do not. This is clearly and obviously contrafactual.
The significant point is that the layout of Outer Space completely changes just beyond this region which just happens to be a region of diffuse rocks which spans a region as large as the distance from the center of the solar system to the start of it. Suddenly, the planets are non longer smallish and rocky, they are enormous and gaseous…and each one has it’s own asteroid belt…and each sports multiple lunar mass moons which are small and rocky like the planets in the inner solar system, many of which have interesting internal compositions which you yourselves theorize COULD be capable of supporting life.
I’m not entirely sure what positing the explanation of “Jupiter prevented coalescence of precursor bodies into a single planet” does to bolster an argument of any sort. It does nothing to address the fact that the composition of space completely changes right after the asteroid belt. With this full context, you can either be satisfied in the explanation you already have - or you can consider the possibility that some trickery is afoot, and deep space isn’t necessarily what you’ve been led to believe it is.
Trickery is afoot alright m’boy, and your just the facthound to sniff out the trail of truth amongst this web of deceit and buffoonery. Save the universe, blind messiah.
If your premise that Jupiter is orbiting the Earth is correct, then that would be accurate. However, Jupiter doesn’t orbit the Sun in the center…it orbits the asteroid belt. Don’t respond with incredulity without first thinking about what that means, how little it actually changes, and how much it explains. We live inside of the Sun…entering Outer Space inverts that image.
The cool thing about the Theory of 42, aside from the obvious references, is it’s a great tool to learn the concept of dimensional relativity. Orbital resonance between celestial bodies follows a predictable, discernible pattern.
Your claim was that the distance from the Sun to Jupiter was 42 light-minutes - that was wrong. If the distance from the Sun to Jupiter doesn’t matter, why did you make the claim?
If you’re going to completely ignore the context, why bother responding at all? As should now be evident, I’m not above counterattacking venom with venom. I’d greatly prefer not to however, which was the point in the original statement. Time is limited, and the longer we spend measuring our dicks, the more of it goes to waste.
And you’d lose that contest anyway, so let’s just forego the territorial threat displays, yes?
