The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

Yes it will work, because you will need to change the current simulation which will have different parameters.  Remember, there will be a new heaven and a new earth!  The old chains were an effective faraday cage against the electromagnetic waves according to the current parameters of the simulation, and the new chains will be an effective faraday cage against the new scalar waves, which was devised to break the old chains.  The new faraday cage will be effective for a thousand years.  "The old has been made new again".

Gravock

LOL, believe what you like.

[CuriousChris]

You being a skeptic, has admitted you have never ever been provided any proof on any of the outrageous claims in which you select to raise doubt over, confirms and is proof of my statement that a skeptic will write off any evidence that opposes their own opinion, beliefs, agenda, etc.

Please provide proof of your claim that you have never ever been provided any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, opinions, agenda, etc.  Either way, it is you and not me who is a faker and a fraud because you are caught in your own contradictory statement.

Gravock

How stupid is that! I have to provide proof I have never been provided proof. Do you know what a circular argument is? If not go and read up on it.

Ok I'll try to do the impossible. In my recent posts I asked Tito L. Oracion to provide proof that Tesla said you can get infinite energy from a condensor. Tito responded he doesn't need to provide proof as he has seen it for himself.

So he failed to provide any evidence to support his claim.

Do you know what proof is? I bet you cannot wrap your brain around the concept of proof can you.

Proof is NOT you saying you have done something
Proof is NOT is not some lame video on you tube
Proof is NOT some other person in your information bubble saying they believe you.

That sort of 'proof' is only for the fools amongst us.

Proof is to provide the report from an independent measurement facility that have measured the input and output of whatever the device is. A report that includes looking for the possibility of deliberate fraud.
Proof is independent replication by an unconnected and reliable third party in the form of a university or other institution who can accurately reproduce the device in question.
Proof is a device I can buy and test for myself.
Proof is pointing to the historical document that shows Tesla made the statement.

They are the types of proofs which are not evident anywhere on this site ever.

If anybody is prepared to accept anything less than the above as proof then they are only fooling themselves and are ripe to be conned.

Not one overunity device has been proven true ever.

So why don't you TRY to prove me wrong.

Point me to a real proof of any overunity claim and I'll reconsider my opinion, until then you are just wasting both our time and making yourself look even more foolish.

[sarkeizen]

So gravityblock seems to have gone considerably more crazy.  I wonder if this is evidence that he is a simple troll...anyway if the portions of his brain that reason ever get back from the vacation they are currently on.  I put forth the following questions regarding his assertion that he has linked to a paper which presents strong statistical evidence for the universe being a simulation.

In which case I really need to know what he means by presents, statistical and strong.

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then gavrock is saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  I would request that he submit a different one, one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and gavrock have chosen some definition of STATISTICAL which does not involve calculations then clearly that creates a problem if he wants to state that the probability is > 0.5

Or he can continue to hijack his own thread talking about people being artificial intelligence or binding them to the abyss...or whatever illucid fantasy he prefers.

[gravityblock]

Glitches in the simulation and more proof of a holographic universe:

The Book of Enoch Describes the Holographic Sky Exactly!

Holographic Moon - Pacman Shadow Moon

The Moon is a Hologram - Part 1

The Moon is a Hologram - Part 2

Plane Flies Straight Through the Moon

Clouds, Haarp, Portals, and Glitches in the Matrix

The Holographic Disclosure - Part 1 of many

Project Blue Beam - Holographic Reality

Holographic Universe (Part 1 of 5) its all illusion

A Holographic Library Left by an Advanced Civilization

Real Sun? Fake Sun? Hologram?

Luke 21:  ²⁵There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars.....

Gravock

[MileHigh]

Gravityblock:

It still blows my mind sometimes how such completely retarded things can be posted on YouTube.  There has to be a "crazy" person behind a retarded clip.  Then people will actually believe the retarded YouTube clips and take them seriously.

I looked at the self-described "tinfoil hat" clip that you linked to in your posting called, "Holographic Moon, Matrix Flaw? The Pac Man Shadow Moon 1-9-2013."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOMCN2K2fhM

Look at the screen capture, they messed up the holographic projection of the moon from the secret HAARP II holographic projection bases in the Indian ocean.

But......  If you have brains and want to do the slightest amount of due diligence, sometimes there are comments on the clip itself that are worth reading.

Like this one, "You don't say what equipment you are using. It looks to me like a very common effect of taking a picture through an eyepiece of a telescope with a camera, and being slightly off-centre, you pick up the edge of the botttom end of the eyepiece. The exit pupil is only so wide, and you have to be over the centre to not get the black line effect. it happens when you view through it as well, but it's easier to do than photographing. You wouldn't get that effect if you attached your camera directly to the telescope and took out the eyepiece. I know some of you want to believe this hologram thing, but every single one of these types of videos and photographs are just so obvious to anyone with any experience in astronomy, and especially astrophotography. Sorry."

I am flabbergasted that a guy that can talk such high-end pseudoscience about quantum theory would be bamboozled into believing that the moon is a holographic projection because some dumb dude went camping in the Arizona mountains and stuck his digital camera up to the eyepiece of his telescope and snapped a picture of the moon missing a big chunk of Limburger cheese.

MileHigh