Discussion Is humanity future... going to be any good?

[Deleted member 36508]

Idk, to me everything seems to be on the road to get worse.

• Like, the more people there are in the world, the worse is life gonna become for everyone. Each human life will be valued less and less, and the competition for even the smallest of things, will increase exponentially. [there is rock bottom, for this...]
• Everything will become already discovered, old, repetitive, and society will become more and more stagnant. [covid has just hastened the process]
  • It will become harder and harder to discover or make anything new, at all. [new generations will have to carry the burden]
• We are on the path to completely use up all of Earth resources... but hey, maybe there is space.
• The only natural resource left exploiting will be people.
• All governments will become like China
• We will have less and less freedom, if anything at all. Our lives will probably become 24/7 controlled and stored on a permanent file.
• Police will have access to all of that, arresting people before crimes are even committed... most of the people arrested, will be incels
• Finally, fighting for a pussy, becoming more and more important. And foids to grow even stronger and more powerful, changing society from Patriarchal to an extreme form of Matriarchy.

Do you see anything good, coming?
To me: Space, maybe... but sadly wont happen anytime sooner than 2500; by then, we will have our first space ship (!), and we'll be finally ready to start local space (Solar Sytem) exploration and colonization (stations, colonies, outposts). By 3000, owning a space vehicle would be like possessing a car, and we will finally be ready to explore the full extent of the Milky way, venturing outside the Solar System for the first time.
Also... androids? Personal wives android? That would very be interesting, but will require at least a couple centuries to become ready... likely more. Probably 2350 for the first working human prototype. AI and new generations of computers will also become essential and a prerequisite to space travel.

But, what about this lifetime, tho? Is anything good showing up, while we're still alive?

 

[Restart80]

Well if a bunch of people die from the vaxx, then that at least addresses some of your concerns.

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

We are fucked. We will see more incels going ER.

 

[kaczynskicel]

The world is fucked. The you-know-whos are responsible and the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster

 

[Demosthenes]

We are fucked. We will see more incels going ER.

Yes, the world is getting worse day by day.

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

Yes, the world is getting worse day by day.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

I just hope people stop fucking so that our species can finally die off.

 

[HighTGymcel]

not for incels.

 

[AngelLord]

Tbh I'm a bit overwhelmed with my own issues rn to think about the world.
Life's hard enough already, can't really pay attention to everything that's going bad on Earth.

 

[Deleted member 38433]

I don't get why euthanizing people like us aren't allowed. It would help prevent overpopulation

 

[Despondent Dreamer]

I just hope people stop fucking so that our species can finally die off.

I actually don't tbh, and this is one of the reasons why I said that I wasn't an advocate for antinatalism in my thread. Simply removing humans from the equation doesn't get rid of all other complex animals, and this planet still has a long enough habitability window to for DNA to evolve our replacements anyway.

More harm would be reduced if we stuck around long enough for someone to figure out how to create enough of a force multiplier to sterilize this planet.

Another thing is that trying to convince people of antinatalism is almost always either useless or outright counterproductive. The process as a whole can't resist it's own programming, it needs to be forcefully switched off.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

To me: Space, maybe... but sadly wont happen anytime sooner than 2500; by then, we will have our first space ship (!), and we'll be finally ready to start local space (Solar Sytem) exploration and colonization (stations, colonies, outposts). By 3000, owning a space vehicle would be like possessing a car, and we will finally be ready to explore the full extent of the Milky way, venturing outside the Solar System for the first time.

I think you're a little too optimistic. Light speed is the absolute limit, and it takes light 4.5 years to get here from the nearest star.

 

[Emba]

I think you're a little too optimistic. Light speed is the absolute limit, and it takes light 4.5 years to get here from the nearest star.

If you say so, globetard!

 

[MarquisDeSade]

Short answer, no, most definitely not. Afterward surviving in the ruins? Maybe....

 

[Deleted member 36508]

I think you're a little too optimistic.

Maybe, a lot of things could go wrong... but also right: we could also discover new great things that will speed up the process enormously. 2500-3000 seems still right, though: we are talking about 1000 years. By comparison, In just the last 50 we have reached the moon, and even Mars, multiple times! And we're preparing the first landing on Mars, I'd say before the end of this century.

Actually, it could happen sooner. Why? Because of China. They want to become the #1 super power of the world, and to get there, they're willing to do anything. The next #1, will be the one that controls space (and AI, beforehand).
So, at some point, we are gonna see a race... to conquer that immense space land and take ownership! Huge space wars! First milestone: Moon/Lunar outpost. First to make it there, will establish a huge military base, and then call all the moon a Russia-China property.
Any hostile space shuttle coming from Earth, will be easily disrupted and annihilated (they're very fragile); they wont let anyone else approach, ever. As retaliation, they cant really nuke the moon, nor make nuclear conflicts on Earth. Space is gonna become the new warfare.

Light speed is the absolute limit, and it takes light 4.5 years to get here from the nearest star.

Yeah, I said 3000 to barely start getting out of this system (the solar system). So far the highest speed we have reached is 1/2000 of light speed, but with a constant acceleration it would be feasible to reach 1/100 (top being 1/10), meaning we would need from 50 to 500 years to get to nearest star... totally doable.
If we'd want to make it super safe, we could use a velocity of 0.1% the speed of light (1/1000), for a 1000 years space journey. Twenty generations to get there. Ship would have:

• Huge sustainable closed recycling system: food, water, air, wastes.
• Huge hardcore armor panels to absorb radiations and space debris. Multiple layers, that must be kept repaired and pristine, to protect the ship from: radiations, heat, explosions, and of course kinetic projectiles. This is the most $$$$ and problematic part; the highest the speed the more solid this must be
• energy shields (?!). They do not exist yet, but if you could make them, we'd solve almost all space travel problems.
• High precision scanners and sensors. The highest the speed, the more useless they become: at 1/1000 you have around 5-10 minutes to react (steering & adjusting trajectory, using weapons, opening or closing ship's parts, bracing for impact...)
• Weapons of all kinds, mostly to destroy/chop incoming debris.
• Solar panels, to recharge energy.
• Spare parts for basically the whole ship and plans/equipment to build anything fresh new in case of need.
• Equipment and plans to make backup desperate landings, in case something goes wrong.

Hmmmm, given all of that, 1/1000 the speed of light is probably the highest sustainable speed: going faster than this would become way more expensive and risky (from exponentially to factorial, or even double exponentially!)

With antimatter-fuelled engines, spacecraft could accelerate over periods of months or years to very high percentages of the speed of light, keeping Gs to a tolerable level for occupants. These fantastic new speeds, however, would usher in fresh dangers for the human body.

An energetic hail

At several hundreds of millions of kilometres per hour, every mote in space, from stray hydrogen gas atoms to micrometeoroids, becomes in effect a high-powered bullet ploughing into a ship’s hull. “When you’re going at high speeds, that’s equivalent to a particle moving at you at high speeds,”

Although only present at a density of around one atom in a cubic centimetre, the cosmos’s ambient hydrogen would translate into a bombardment of intense radiation. The hydrogen would shatter into subatomic particles that would pass into the ship, irradiating both crew and equipment. At speeds around 95% of light, the exposure would be near-instantly deadly. The star ship would heat up, too, to melting temperatures for essentially any conceivable material, while water in the crew’s bodies would promptly boil. “These are all nasty problems,”
He and his father roughly estimated that barring some sort of conjectural magnetic shielding to divert the lethal hydrogen rain, star ships could go no faster than about half of light speed without killing their human occupants.
...this potential human travel speed limit remains a distant worry. “Based on the physics that has already been accrued, velocities beyond 10% the speed of light will be very difficult to achieve,”

Tbh I'm a bit overwhelmed with my own issues rn to think about the world.
Life's hard enough already, can't really pay attention to everything that's going bad on Earth.

That's definitely a good choice... and u should keep doing that, as normies do. But, when everyone does it, then things go to the shitter...
Technically, it should be the government that handle all of this, but sadly... they use the same approach, and care only about themselves :\

 

[InMyCellInHell]

I just hope people stop fucking so that our species can finally die off.

 

[WizardofSoda]

By the astronomy I believe in which is an alternative system to the Copernicus system, other stars are like 500,000 times closer than in the Copernicus system.

Because we see no parallax with stars the official astronomy had to estimate them being insanely far away and insanely huge. Or else if they were similar in size to our Sun we either couldn't see them because they were too far away, or if they were much closer as I believe, then we would see parallax with the Copernican model of our solar system. (The Earth in the Copernican model travels in an orbit around the Sun that has a 300 million km wide diameter. So the Earth in different times of the year in the Copernican model is 300 million miles in a different place yet we see no parallax with any Star).

Then in the 1800's official astronomy got pressed on this idea that all stars we could see were so gigantic. So they later came up with another explanation, that our atmosphere acts like a telescope for far off stars and magnifies how big they look massively.

I believe the Earth is stationary or only moving very slowly. Which answers the no parallax question. With a stationary Earth the Stars can be 500,000 times closer and not need the atmosphere acting like a telescope explanation.

In the astronomy model I believe in light can travel from the nearest Star to Earth in just 5 minutes. So Innoc's 1/1000th the speed of light at full speed after accelerating to that the distance would only take like 100 hours or something. Maybe say add an extra few 100 hours for accelerating and decelerating.

Since we are going to cure aging in time we are eventually going to have a problem with overpopulation. That is why I came up with the idea that if people wanted kids at some point they have to go to one of the colonies on other planets.



Will the other Stars have Earth like planets that are habitable

Yes this is something I figured out. All Stars will have a Barycenter too. And there will be the Earthlike planet. But what if the star is really big or really small compared to our Sun. Then the distance of that Earthlike planet will vary from its Sun. The size of that Earthlike planet will vary too - that is one thing is gravitation will be different. But even there I ended up thinking about something that I don't think they considered. On a more massive planet you are further away from the gravitational center. Thats why I'm not 100% convinced yet that gravitation is different on different planets.

And I expect the temperature will be similar to Earth on those planets. Aka water will be water there too, and not just ice or water vapor.

You see all these things are on insanely simple algebra. The Moon is 1/6th the size of the Earth, and it is 6 Earth distances away. The fake astronomy taught to astronomers it needs all these huge formulas and complex theories. The real one doesn't it is simple.


Will those Earthlike planets have water on the surface

Yes I thought this out, because as seen on Earth the planet has all these different elements and then composites of elements. Aka H2O for water. Since most likely water will be made in huge amounts as the planet is formed then the water will go to the surface. Only thing is a bunch of these planets might be water worlds. Aka the height of the water is taller than the land there.

Why does water go to the surface. Its because water is incompressible. You could have a pan of water and put the entire weight of the Earth on the water in the pan, and the water would not get compressed.

So because water's density isn't very high it gets pushed to the surface over time. As other elements and composites are compressed and are more heavy going to the magnetic vortex at the center of the Earth.

Being incompressible water can blast through anything in time. It will cut through rock if necessary. So imagine all the rocks are pushing down as they get sucked towards the magnetic vortex. But there is some water in the way. The rocks will splash into the water and go to the bottom. Which makes the water go up from where it was. Like this is verifiable you can throw a rock into a lake and it will go to the bottom.

Throw enough rocks and have high sides on the lake, and the water will rise up, aka the water is always at the surface.

 

[gimmedatrope999]

I think we’re doomed and the reason I say this is because of human nature. We’re simply savages at the end of the day.

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

Bruh, just look at Reddit... we are fucked.

 

[Emba]

By the astronomy I believe in which is an alternative system to the Copernicus system, other stars are like 500,000 times closer than in the Copernicus system.

Because we see no parallax with stars the official astronomy had to estimate them being insanely far away and insanely huge. Or else if they were similar in size to our Sun we either couldn't see them because they were too far away, or if they were much closer as I believe, then we would see parallax with the Copernican model of our solar system. (The Earth in the Copernican model travels in an orbit around the Sun that has a 300 million km wide diameter. So the Earth in different times of the year in the Copernican model is 300 million miles in a different place yet we see no parallax with any Star).

Then in the 1800's official astronomy got pressed on this idea that all stars we could see were so gigantic. So they later came up with another explanation, that our atmosphere acts like a telescope for far off stars and magnifies how big they look massively.

I believe the Earth is stationary or only moving very slowly. Which answers the no parallax question. With a stationary Earth the Stars can be 500,000 times closer and not need the atmosphere acting like a telescope explanation.

In the astronomy model I believe in light can travel from the nearest Star to Earth in just 5 minutes. So Innoc's 1/1000th the speed of light at full speed after accelerating to that the distance would only take like 100 hours or something. Maybe say add an extra few 100 hours for accelerating and decelerating.

Since we are going to cure aging in time we are eventually going to have a problem with overpopulation. That is why I came up with the idea that if people wanted kids at some point they have to go to one of the colonies on other planets.



Will the other Stars have Earth like planets that are habitable

Yes this is something I figured out. All Stars will have a Barycenter too. And there will be the Earthlike planet. But what if the star is really big or really small compared to our Sun. Then the distance of that Earthlike planet will vary from its Sun. The size of that Earthlike planet will vary too - that is one thing is gravitation will be different. But even there I ended up thinking about something that I don't think they considered. On a more massive planet you are further away from the gravitational center. Thats why I'm not 100% convinced yet that gravitation is different on different planets.

And I expect the temperature will be similar to Earth on those planets. Aka water will be water there too, and not just ice or water vapor.

You see all these things are on insanely simple algebra. The Moon is 1/6th the size of the Earth, and it is 6 Earth distances away. The fake astronomy taught to astronomers it needs all these huge formulas and complex theories. The real one doesn't it is simple.


Will those Earthlike planets have water on the surface

Yes I thought this out, because as seen on Earth the planet has all these different elements and then composites of elements. Aka H2O for water. Since most likely water will be made in huge amounts as the planet is formed then the water will go to the surface. Only thing is a bunch of these planets might be water worlds. Aka the height of the water is taller than the land there.

Why does water go to the surface. Its because water is incompressible. You could have a pan of water and put the entire weight of the Earth on the water in the pan, and the water would not get compressed.

So because water's density isn't very high it gets pushed to the surface over time. As other elements and composites are compressed and are more heavy going to the magnetic vortex at the center of the Earth.

Being incompressible water can blast through anything in time. It will cut through rock if necessary. So imagine all the rocks are pushing down as they get sucked towards the magnetic vortex. But there is some water in the way. The rocks will splash into the water and go to the bottom. Which makes the water go up from where it was. Like this is verifiable you can throw a rock into a lake and it will go to the bottom.

Throw enough rocks and have high sides on the lake, and the water will rise up, aka the water is always at the surface.

I could stand to learn more about this topic. Could you please set me up with some keywords? Especially the astronomy stuff... My guess is (((they))) cut astronomy from astrology to remove the "energetic" components from scientific thought.

I'm inclined to believe the flat earth stellar model where "stars" are simply "energy blobs." As it's something I can verify via super strong binoculars. Their are YouTube videos of various stars that confirm my view.

Yet, different types of telescopes offer different views of the same star... Super zoom cameras show the e blobs, and multiple glass telescopes show solids.

This parallax thing might explained that.

 

[WizardofSoda]

I could stand to learn more about this topic. Could you please set me up with some keywords? Especially the astronomy stuff... My guess is (((they))) cut astronomy from astrology to remove the "energetic" components from scientific thought.

I'm inclined to believe the flat earth stellar model where "stars" are simply "energy blobs." As it's something I can verify via super strong binoculars. Their are YouTube videos of various stars that confirm my view.

Yet, different types of telescopes offer different views of the same star... Super zoom cameras show the e blobs, and multiple glass telescopes show solids.

This parallax thing might explained that.

Look up SimonShack the Tychos model. Simon has went back to before astronomy went down the wrong track. And he has researched a huge amount of work of astronomers over the centuries. I contributed a small amount to his work too.

Tychos back around the 1580's he figured most things out for our solar system. The guy was a super genius.

I don't know why it got buried and hidden. But many sciences are that way if you follow them.. physics was also buried and taken over after WWI. Astronomy it seems got buried way back around 1600.

One super suspicious thing to me is how few pictures and videos you can find online even of our own solar system. Like are they telling me no amateur astronomer with high powered telescope and digital zoom cameras has ever wanted to put up a site with pictures he has. (that don't necessarily match the official science religion taught in our society).

 

[Rhaast]

Nope.

 

[Emba]

Look up SimonShack the Tychos model. Simon has went back to before astronomy went down the wrong track. And he has researched a huge amount of work of astronomers over the centuries. I contributed a small amount to his work too.

Tychos back around the 1580's he figured most things out for our solar system. The guy was a super genius.

I don't know why it got buried and hidden. But many sciences are that way if you follow them.. physics was also buried and taken over after WWI. Astronomy it seems got buried way back around 1600.

One super suspicious thing to me is how few pictures and videos you can find online even of our own solar system. Like are they telling me no amateur astronomer with high powered telescope and digital zoom cameras has ever wanted to put up a site with pictures he has. (that don't necessarily match the official science religion taught in our society).

Thanks bro.

It's creepy how all the space photos is only from gov projects. It makes me not trust the shit.

I once saw Jupiter (or saturn) via a telescope but it looked like crap. But telescope dude was all excited. I was like,
[UWSL] "meh. This is lame."[/UWSL]

[UWSL]i looked up parallax and still don't understand it. I'll have to look up a child's science video to get it lol. Everything is obfuscated by blather.[/UWSL]

[UWSL]there was a lot of new world shit going on at that time so I figure it was easy to media hole the information.[/UWSL]

[UWSL]anyway thanks for the information.[/UWSL]

[UWSL]one of my theory is:[/UWSL]

[UWSL]the earth is flat and stationary realm of compressed energy. And the planets and stars are energy beings that go around in circles. Like witches, compressing energy into our reality. [/UWSL]

[UWSL]you would think that after however many thousands of years looking at stars, the constellations would have changed. And if we were moving, they would. After all, the other stars have there own motions and paths too, right? Even if just our motion through the galaxy stayed the same, the other galaxies (constellation patterns) would have went there own way. (GGTOW)[/UWSL]

Anyway, I've looked st astrology, and that shit is creepy accurate about mentalities!

Not the newspaper/magazine horoscope shit, the plotted graph birth time place "professional version" that shows where the stars and planets were at your time of birth.

So, why is that stuff accurate? Is it from electromagnetic radiations from that sky stuff? Are they beings, with personalities? "The real creator gods?" Is Polaris the original God? (The one that the others circle...)

As far as other planets go... Maybe they are here, with us? In other vibratory frequencies?

There's a lot more questions than answers...

I realize I'm being primitive about it, but whatever can be described simply is more probably true.

Anyway, there's no way for me to prove anything, but it does explain a lot.

Our perceptions have been tainted for a long time. Most people believe the most stupid shit. Like they'll believe a old book, and they believe the new TV...

 

[WizardofSoda]

Thanks bro.

It's creepy how all the space photos is only from gov projects. It makes me not trust the shit.

I once saw Jupiter (or saturn) via a telescope but it looked like crap. But telescope dude was all excited. I was like,
[UWSL] "meh. This is lame."[/UWSL]

[UWSL]i looked up parallax and still don't understand it. I'll have to look up a child's science video to get it lol. Everything is obfuscated by blather.[/UWSL]

[UWSL]there was a lot of new world shit going on at that time so I figure it was easy to media hole the information.[/UWSL]

[UWSL]anyway thanks for the information.[/UWSL]

[UWSL]one of my theory is:[/UWSL]

[UWSL]the earth is flat and stationary realm of compressed energy. And the planets and stars are energy beings that go around in circles. Like witches, compressing energy into our reality. [/UWSL]

[UWSL]you would think that after however many thousands of years looking at stars, the constellations would have changed. And if we were moving, they would. After all, the other stars have there own motions and paths too, right? Even if just our motion through the galaxy stayed the same, the other galaxies (constellation patterns) would have went there own way. (GGTOW)[/UWSL]

Anyway, I've looked st astrology, and that shit is creepy accurate about mentalities!

Not the newspaper/magazine horoscope shit, the plotted graph birth time place "professional version" that shows where the stars and planets were at your time of birth.

So, why is that stuff accurate? Is it from electromagnetic radiations from that sky stuff? Are they beings, with personalities? "The real creator gods?" Is Polaris the original God? (The one that the others circle...)

As far as other planets go... Maybe they are here, with us? In other vibratory frequencies?

There's a lot more questions than answers...

I realize I'm being primitive about it, but whatever can be described simply is more probably true.

Anyway, there's no way for me to prove anything, but it does explain a lot.

Our perceptions have been tainted for a long time. Most people believe the most stupid shit. Like they'll believe a old book, and they believe the new TV...

Ya there should be really advanced amateur photographs of other planets.. yet I can't find them and I've tried searching multiple times over the years even 10 years ago there were none. Are they telling me there are no amateur astronomers who make their own webpages? That 100% tells me they are being hidden.. and why hide them if they match up to the official teachings?

My friends said maybe astronomy amateurs don't make websites. Or don't ever make pictures of things like Mars. Yet how believable is that.. but they have to believe just that if they want to keep believing in official science, which they will no matter what evidence you show them. People actually won't believe their own eyes(eg.. the blackpill).

Ya if the Earth was in a 300 million kilometer diameter orbit, the positions of stars would change on the other side of the orbit but they don't. And if we had this huge galaxy that was orbiting the positions of stars would change relative to each other over 100's of years - but they don't. Like you are saying if all the other Stars were in their own movements they would change position relative to each other, at least a couple of them - but they don't. Showing they aren't moving either.


Also I tried to find from the local observatories zooms of things like Mars but they never have them, in fact they have no pictures at all available, and you can't visit them to look in yourself - even as we as taxpayers are paying for these telescopes. All they have is events a couple times a year when they zoom in on some remote far away thing like a far off galaxy and you can look, and no changing of the position of the telescope.



This is parallax more or less. The Earth goes around an orbit with a 300 km diameter. We look up and the North Star is still dead on to the North. In fact all Stars are in the exact same spot. That isn't possible if the Earth is moving from basic laws of perspective.

They should change position when changing dramatically our vantage point. Therefore I can safely say the Earth is either not moving or moving only very slowly.




I considered the Flat Earth theory and the Stars possibly being not Stars like our Sun, but perhaps energy sources/spirits. Here is the thing, the way we see the Sun and the Moon, and the way we see the half Moon and so on. It works so well with a spherical Earth and we are tilted at an angle.

So the Sun 'orbits' around us from our perspective, as the Earth is caught in the Barycenter of the solar system. Since we are sitting there at this angle tilted it creates the seasons.

With science they have to hide it now. Because no way can they have any credibility if they say actually we are wrong. The drawings I just made they are where I do agree with the current model(except in mine the Earth isn't moving). But the spherical shapes and the rotation and how the Earth is tilted for some reason.


Strange thing for me is why the Moon is aligned in its orbit of the Earth with the plane the solar system is on, and not the North/South axis of the Earth.


But I still welcome crazy theories like why the zoom ins the things don't look like solid objects.. why is that. Or weird 'update' refresh looking things. Why is that, unlike official science I like the more crazy the questions the better, and the more that challenge whatever I believe.

 

[Emba]

Ya there should be really advanced amateur photographs of other planets.. yet I can't find them and I've tried searching multiple times over the years even 10 years ago there were none. Are they telling me there are no amateur astronomers who make their own webpages? That 100% tells me they are being hidden.. and why hide them if they match up to the official teachings?

My friends said maybe astronomy amateurs don't make websites. Or don't ever make pictures of things like Mars. Yet how believable is that.. but they have to believe just that if they want to keep believing in official science, which they will no matter what evidence you show them. People actually won't believe their own eyes(eg.. the blackpill).

Ya if the Earth was in a 300 million kilometer diameter orbit, the positions of stars would change on the other side of the orbit but they don't. And if we had this huge galaxy that was orbiting the positions of stars would change relative to each other over 100's of years - but they don't. Like you are saying if all the other Stars were in their own movements they would change position relative to each other, at least a couple of them - but they don't. Showing they aren't moving either.


Also I tried to find from the local observatories zooms of things like Mars but they never have them, in fact they have no pictures at all available, and you can't visit them to look in yourself - even as we as taxpayers are paying for these telescopes. All they have is events a couple times a year when they zoom in on some remote far away thing like a far off galaxy and you can look, and no changing of the position of the telescope.



This is parallax more or less. The Earth goes around an orbit with a 300 km diameter. We look up and the North Star is still dead on to the North. In fact all Stars are in the exact same spot. That isn't possible if the Earth is moving from basic laws of perspective.

They should change position when changing dramatically our vantage point. Therefore I can safely say the Earth is either not moving or moving only very slowly.




I considered the Flat Earth theory and the Stars possibly being not Stars like our Sun, but perhaps energy sources/spirits. Here is the thing, the way we see the Sun and the Moon, and the way we see the half Moon and so on. It works so well with a spherical Earth and we are tilted at an angle.

So the Sun 'orbits' around us from our perspective, as the Earth is caught in the Barycenter of the solar system. Since we are sitting there at this angle tilted it creates the seasons.

View attachment 555158

View attachment 555160




With science they have to hide it now. Because no way can they have any credibility if they say actually we are wrong. The drawings I just made they are where I do agree with the current model(except in mine the Earth isn't moving). But the spherical shapes and the rotation and how the Earth is tilted for some reason.


Strange thing for me is why the Moon is aligned in its orbit of the Earth with the plane the solar system is on, and not the North/South axis of the Earth.


But I still welcome crazy theories like why the zoom ins the things don't look like solid objects.. why is that. Or weird 'update' refresh looking things. Why is that, unlike official science I like the more crazy the questions the better, and the more that challenge whatever I believe.
View attachment 555161




View attachment 555162

Ok. So maybe the earth is round. And everything is rotating around us? Creating us.

I never heard that about the moon before. If gravity was real it would go around the equator! But only the solar equator?

Maybe our seasonal causing tilt is from a harmonic of the difference between stars and planets?

I'm inclined to also believe the "electric universe" theory. Where everything is energy and frequency.

(Yeah, I can believe semi conflicting theory's, lol)

According to various folks were are approaching the galactic equatorial plane - if so, our sky would be thicker with stars, dust, electrical discharges (auroras) and lights. But all I can notice is more lighting during storms.

(Suspicious observers and space weather .com...)

It should be more noticeable! The galactic dust ring as it should be... That could be a reason for both global warming band cooling too!

Warming from a extra electricity, more DUST hitting the sun stirring it up. And cooling by blocking the sun... And causing volcanoes...

Unfortunately, all the theorists have is modern "shell game" science. Where everything is made cryptic and over complicated by design.

Of course, the galactic equatorial zone electric dust would only be a thing, if we were actually moving through it.

When I look up at night sky in winter, the milky way seems to be in the same spot as always...

The ancients had a theory of long cycles. Similar to zodiac. But if we were moving the zodiac would too.

Back at the beginning... My guess is it's a combination of many things. But it's simple. But currently undescribable.

 

[WizardofSoda]

Ok. So maybe the earth is round. And everything is rotating around us? Creating us.

I never heard that about the moon before. If gravity was real it would go around the equator! But only the solar equator?

Maybe our seasonal causing tilt is from a harmonic of the difference between stars and planets?

I'm inclined to also believe the "electric universe" theory. Where everything is energy and frequency.

(Yeah, I can believe semi conflicting theory's, lol)

According to various folks were are approaching the galactic equatorial plane - if so, our sky would be thicker with stars, dust, electrical discharges (auroras) and lights. But all I can notice is more lighting during storms.

(Suspicious observers and space weather .com...)

It should be more noticeable! The galactic dust ring as it should be... That could be a reason for both global warming band cooling too!

Warming from a extra electricity, more DUST hitting the sun stirring it up. And cooling by blocking the sun... And causing volcanoes...

Unfortunately, all the theorists have is modern "shell game" science. Where everything is made cryptic and over complicated by design.

Of course, the galactic equatorial zone electric dust would only be a thing, if we were actually moving through it.

When I look up at night sky in winter, the milky way seems to be in the same spot as always...

The ancients had a theory of long cycles. Similar to zodiac. But if we were moving the zodiac would too.

Back at the beginning... My guess is it's a combination of many things. But it's simple. But currently undescribable.

In Simon's Tychos model the great year is something like 25,000 years. In his model the Earth moves in an orbit at 1.6 km per hour. Which is suspiciously close to me to 1 mile.


Ya I am ok with conflicting theories too as we learn about it. Something cool I realized a long time ago is science is still wide open.


Ya by making things sound insanely complex they appear knowledge and also hide problems. And make it seem like a religion, with their own vocabulary. It is really effective at giving the illusion they know what they are talking about. While making it seem like it would take many, many years just to learn the most simple thing.

But we know actual truth in the world is usually dead simple when we find it. If something is that hard to understand imo it probably is not the truth. For example I saw the Moon is 1/6th the size of the Earth. And it is 6 Earth distances away. You don't need to be a mathematician to understand that.


I also view it is an electrical universe. Back in around the year 1600, they did not yet know about electricity. But they did know gravity, so imo they guessed the same force was involved.


For the Galaxy the reason I don't believe we are orbiting or that any of the other stars are orbiting is the experiments with the aether. Imo the experiments just show the Earth is stationary or close to it. So I realized this applies not just to our solar system but also to our galaxy. And also against the idea of 'red shift'.

For a Galactic plane it would make sense, but ya I see your point, then we should see a ton of Stars along the plane. I haven't noticed that when I look up at the Stars they seem to be widely dispersed.

 

[Emba]

In Simon's Tychos model the great year is something like 25,000 years. In his model the Earth moves in an orbit at 1.6 km per hour. Which is suspiciously close to me to 1 mile.


Ya I am ok with conflicting theories too as we learn about it. Something cool I realized a long time ago is science is still wide open.


Ya by making things sound insanely complex they appear knowledge and also hide problems. And make it seem like a religion, with their own vocabulary. It is really effective at giving the illusion they know what they are talking about. While making it seem like it would take many, many years just to learn the most simple thing.

But we know actual truth in the world is usually dead simple when we find it. If something is that hard to understand imo it probably is not the truth. For example I saw the Moon is 1/6th the size of the Earth. And it is 6 Earth distances away. You don't need to be a mathematician to understand that.


I also view it is an electrical universe. Back in around the year 1600, they did not yet know about electricity. But they did know gravity, so imo they guessed the same force was involved.


For the Galaxy the reason I don't believe we are orbiting or that any of the other stars are orbiting is the experiments with the aether. Imo the experiments just show the Earth is stationary or close to it. So I realized this applies not just to our solar system but also to our galaxy. And also against the idea of 'red shift'.

For a Galactic plane it would make sense, but ya I see your point, then we should see a ton of Stars along the plane. I haven't noticed that when I look up at the Stars they seem to be widely dispersed.

Wow a mile an hour! That would explain the non sloshing oceans! (As well as the oceans not flinging off into space. Like on a thrown wet tennis ball) As well as the static stars being predictable.

A lot can happen in 25000 years! As far as humanity goes. We was cavemen bro! Scratching impossible electrical plasma formations on our cave walls! ("Squatterman")

The disaster guy (suspicious observer) says every 26000 years we hit the galactic plane equator... Every 26k some major disaster happens. Most likely a mini nova from our sun. Causing an ice age... He uses geology and multiple sciences.

According to zodiac stuff, we are entering the age of Aquarius. The water bearer. Water = "mana" = energy, in kahuna lore. Energy, being, chi/ prana/ ether/ prima materia... So added energy.

Hence the need to dumb down the population quickly! Before they use that energy to upset their Apple cart.

I guess I better read up on Simon's Tycho model. What's he say about cycles? Or is it just physical science? They didn't have as much information back then, but it was less polluted...

 

[Knajjd]

I think you're a little too optimistic. Light speed is the absolute limit, and it takes light 4.5 years to get here from the nearest star.

The Theory of Relativity might be replaced by another theory someday, allowing faster than light travel.

 

[Deleted member 17245]

I don't think there's a future for most of humanity. Whatever survives and makes it out of the next century won't be considered human.

 

[Sparrow's Song]

Beta Uprising or be consumed by eternal darkness and decay.

Incels rise up.

 

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

The sun will ran out of its nuclear fuel,we are doomed.

 

[Deleted member 17245]

I think you're a little too optimistic. Light speed is the absolute limit, and it takes light 4.5 years to get here from the nearest star.

Who cares?

Space travel under constant acceleration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the frame of reference of those on the ship the acceleration will not change as the journey goes on. Instead the planetary reference frame will look more and more relativistic. This means that for voyagers on the ship the journey will appear to be much shorter than what planetary observers see.

At a constant acceleration of 1 g, a rocket could travel the diameter of our galaxy in about 12 years ship time, and about 113,000 years planetary time. If the last half of the trip involves deceleration at 1 g, the trip would take about 24 years. If the trip is merely to the nearest star, with deceleration the last half of the way, it would take 3.6 years.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

The Theory of Relativity might be replaced by another theory someday, allowing faster than light travel.

That would still fuck causality, and I shudder to think what would happen then.

Who cares?

Space travel under constant acceleration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the frame of reference of those on the ship the acceleration will not change as the journey goes on. Instead the planetary reference frame will look more and more relativistic. This means that for voyagers on the ship the journey will appear to be much shorter than what planetary observers see.

At a constant acceleration of 1 g, a rocket could travel the diameter of our galaxy in about 12 years ship time, and about 113,000 years planetary time. If the last half of the trip involves deceleration at 1 g, the trip would take about 24 years. If the trip is merely to the nearest star, with deceleration the last half of the way, it would take 3.6 years.

Yeah, in other words, the universe will age incredibly fast from the traveler's perspective. The universe won't last forever, and habitable stars and planets definitely won't. If you do a lot of space travel, you'll run out of time awfully quickly, if only because the rest of the universe will get too old to the point that the only thing left are white dwarves and black holes, before long.

 

[Knajjd]

Afterward surviving in the ruins? Maybe....

Like the Morlocks in The Time Machine?

 

[MarquisDeSade]

View attachment 555468View attachment 555469

Like the Morlocks in The Time Machine?

Probably.

 

[92 drowsiness?]

I Don´t see the future being any good i think that honestly the more the times passes more and more often people will become even more hedonistic,its a straight down line poligamy will probably be common in the future,2 or 3 man for 1 women and shit like that we´re fucked. uprise time