It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Green proves simulation theory

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

yeah, that's it, and there's no difference between radio and gamma waves, are there? really, I can't understand why the sun is so blue when it should be a crappy brown with all those colors mixed together.




posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

thats for sure



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

only for the scientifically challenged



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CircleofFloss
a reply to: TerryDon79

were they taken by the Hubble, perchance? you know, the same Hubble that only takes pictures in black and white?


Hubble has multiple cameras that work in ranges that extend well below and above the visible spectrum. To achieve greater photon capture it has multiple cameras, each with specific ranges of efficiency.

In Astronomy, spectral details tell us vast amounts.

That you could conceive that anyone would spend billions of dollars putting an imaging device in orbit that could only take monochrome images is fairly explicatory of limitations of your knowledge.

Your original post does not even address any of the Simulation theories, let alone prove, or disprove, them.

edit on 9/12/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Phage
Shouldn't this be in Skunk Works?

I think all we can say for certain is that it shouldn't be in Science and Technology.


Yeah but...

The word "theory" sounds so science-y, and stuff.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CircleofFloss

Man, I don't know about your choice of subject material, but you put on one great show. I bet for the majority of people that participated in this thread, time has flown by.






posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

ah yes, all those monies going to Nasa for the purpose of something they don't tell us, that's crazy! no one believes that nonsense, especially on a CT site!



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CircleofFloss
a reply to: Phage

only for the scientifically challenged


You don't know the meaning of the word.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

thanks, good science should be entertaining...cheers



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

who is the midget in your avatar?



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: CircleofFloss

In all reality we can only speculate about many of those things based on what we know with current technology and resources.

I cannot think of a single thread where anyone has got away with pushing anything unproven as fact without being challenged on it. Not on ATS.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CircleofFloss
a reply to: dug88

you know, before Nasa, there was a time when all that existed, existed in this Galaxy. there used to be geniuses back then, full of mozarts creating symphonies, davincies painting Mona Lisas, and religious folks able to recite any part of their scripture from memory. today we have, umm, stuff I guess, and we think we know so much.


Ha there just outed yourself. Its well known Nasa wrote the simulation and sent it backwards through time to create the universe. There is no before Nasa. All of that is part of the simulation. That artwork is fake. The only thing real was the time of nasa before they sent their simulation backwards.

Only they have seen the truth:



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Staff PSA

This thread is now in SkunkWorks.


Even more reason to stop the sniping.


Please adjust accordingly.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: CircleofFloss

Leroy.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

isn't that interesting?



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CircleofFloss
a reply to: chr0naut

ah yes, all those monies going to Nasa for the purpose of something they don't tell us, that's crazy! no one believes that nonsense, especially on a CT site!


Just wait for the revelation that our universe isn't expanding. That the big bang is actually impossible and the red shift of galaxies denotes their age and not the speed at which they are moving away from our point of view.

Fun times ahead.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Illumimasontruth

yeah but the challenge is still from an accepted standpoint, and there are some things that are so out of date, like relativity or gravity, that shouldn't be in this day and age, 100's of years after the introduction of those outdated theories.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: CircleofFloss
a reply to: Illumimasontruth

...there are some things that are so out of date, like relativity or gravity, that shouldn't be in this day and age, 100's of years after the introduction of those outdated theories.

Relativity is not a "100's of years" old theory.




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join