[Europa (OP)]

I know this is a waste of time, you'll never listen...

Quite wrong as the reason that dark matter is speculated is that there is not enough mass and energy in the universe to fuel not just the expansion of the universe but the acceleration of the expansion velocity.

That is simply false.  The expansion of the universe was accepted before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy.  The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to dark energy not dark matter.

Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.

I don't know where you got the '5 times' number but that doesn't matter.  There is no prohibition in relativity for the recession velocity of distant galaxies to exceed c as I said.  Relativity says that mass cannot move through space faster than c and the recession velocity is not due to distant galaxies moving through space it is due to the expansion of space between us and the distant galaxies.

Like I said this is falling on deaf ears, so you will of course continue to wallow in your ignorance - c'est la vie.[shrug]

Dark energy is derived from dark matter in the minds of people who invent new numbers to fix their useless equations.   Simplified as we know 2 + 2 = 4 however the cosmological constant runs more like 2 + 0.3 = 4 so they invent new numbers to make the equation correct.  LOL Try that on math test and see how you are graded.  You believe what you are told like an ant follows the ant in front of it, furthermore what you are believing is not fact but theory (fiction) in the first place, so all of your arguments are based on fiction.

All that said you may reveal how Einstein who proved that nothing can travel faster than light was correct when multiple things are doing that now, most notably distant galaxies?   

Tyson has fixed the error by claiming that there are no galaxies, that is like answering a question by saying that there is no question

[Europa (OP)]

It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world

But what is it a simulation of? And why?

Watch the video where Tyson explains himself.  In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.  So all that said now the loonies in charge are claiming that you are really code in a great big computer, something like the Matrix I suppose but Tyson presents it as reality not fiction.

The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world" with timestamp on 4 Jul 2017.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - like Elon Musk - says it's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulation, explaining that with the computing power to create worlds - that can create worlds, that then create more worlds - the likelihood that we're living in the "real world" is, at best, slim.

Here is his update of what he believes.

The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis" with timestamp on 18 Mar 2020.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice are here (or are they?) to investigate if we're living in a simulation. We explore the ever-advancing computer power and how that impacts the simulation hypothesis. Chuck wonders if a simulation universe has anything to do with us not being able to travel at the speed of light. You'll learn about Bayesian statistics. Lastly, Neil tells us how he was ready to embrace the simulation hypothesis until he came across a certain idea that changed his mind.

I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands? 

[Just thinking]

I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands? 

People that talk with their hands only do so because they can't stand each others breath.

[Europa (OP)]

I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands? 

People that talk with their hands only do so because they can't stand each others breath.

Actually the hand movements likely help the mover find the next word in the lie.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/200904/why-do-we-move-our-hands-when-we-talk-i-finding-the-right-words#:~:text=People%20who%20are%20lecturing%20or,people%20to%20find%20a%20word.

Still other gestures help us to keep the beat of our speech. People who are lecturing or giving a formal speech will often move their hands in time with what they are saying. These hand gestures play a role in coordinating the timing and pacing of what is being said.

One interesting role of gestures is that they can help people to find a word. We all have had the experience of knowing what we want to say, but not being able to find the word. This kind of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can be quite frustrating at times.

[Just thinking]

One interesting role of gestures is that they can help people to find a word. We all have had the experience of knowing what we want to say, but not being able to find the word. This kind of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can be quite frustrating at times.

Like if someone is talking to you and you start picking your nose that is a hand gesture to indicate you're not listening.

[Europa (OP)]

One interesting role of gestures is that they can help people to find a word. We all have had the experience of knowing what we want to say, but not being able to find the word. This kind of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can be quite frustrating at times.

Like if someone is talking to you and you start picking your nose that is a hand gesture to indicate you're not listening.

Actually it is an IQ indicator

[Just thinking]

Actually it is an IQ indicator

Do you mean it shows the other person how talented you are?

[hamdani yusuf]

I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands? 

Do you still think that he believes in God?

[Europa (OP)]

Actually it is an IQ indicator

Do you mean it shows the other person how talented you are?

If someone picked their nose in front of you, your comment would be.  Cool can I have some.

[Europa (OP)]

I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands?

Do you still think that he believes in God?

Absolutely as he defined God precisely.  See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God.  Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from.  So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond

[hamdani yusuf]

Absolutely as he defined God precisely.  See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God.  Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from.  So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond

Have you accounted for 50% chance that we are not in a simulation? Doesn't it means that there is 50% chance that God doesn't exist?

[Europa (OP)]

Absolutely as he defined God precisely.  See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God.  Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from.  So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond

Have you accounted for 50% chance that we are not in a simulation? Doesn't it means that there is 50% chance that God doesn't exist?

There is no 50 percent chance, as the truth is always 100 percent true whether it is known or not.  Since we do not know people like Tyson take advantage and write books based on nonsense like Hawking wrote that nothing can escape from a black hole, then later he claimed that he was wrong.  So Hawking and Tyson are not wrong or correct, they are just children speculating where they came from as children will do

[Europa (OP)]

Absolutely as he defined God precisely.  See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God.  Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from.  So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond

Have you accounted for 50% chance that we are not in a simulation? Doesn't it means that there is 50% chance that God doesn't exist?

Do you believe that there is a 50 percent chance that Tyson is right, and if so how do you calculate this? or are you just believing what you see and hear

[Bored chemist]

Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.

No, they aren't.

I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.

Exactly the same comments can be made about the traditional "God".
And the essence of Neil De Grasse Tyson's comment is that you can equate the two.

So, if you believe in a simulation, you believe in a thing which he chooses to label as God.

Setting aside the question of how we might know if this is a simulation or not, the view that God is a computer programmer is not the same as the view that God is a bearded man in the sky who is far too interested in your private life.

So it may be true that The Pope and N de G T both say "I believe in God"- but the Gods they believe in are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.
I could name my neighbour's cat "God" and claim that I believe in "God"; but I'd still be an atheist.

Naming a hypothetical computer program (or programmer) "God" is much the same thing as relabelling the cat.

[Europa (OP)]

Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.

No, they aren't.

I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.

Exactly the same comments can be made about the traditional "God".
And the essence of Neil De Grasse Tyson's comment is that you can equate the two.

So, if you believe in a simulation, you believe in a thing which he chooses to label as God.

Setting aside the question of how we might know if this is a simulation or not, the view that God is a computer programmer is not the same as the view that God is a bearded man in the sky who is far too interested in your private life.

So it may be true that The Pope and N de G T both say "I believe in God"- but the Gods they believe in are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.
I could name my neighbour's cat "God" and claim that I believe in "God"; but I'd still be an atheist.

Naming a hypothetical computer program (or programmer) "God" is much the same thing as relabelling the cat.

Again believers believe that they were created by God.  God is just the name of the creator, other names are Yahweh, or Allah.  The name is not of consequence but a creator is needed, Tyson is now accepting this but he chooses to view his God as a programmer.  I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA that did not create itself in a pond.  Tyson now agrees with me, you do not have too. 

[Bored chemist]

I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA

Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?

[Bored chemist]

Again believers believe that they were created by God.

Yes, but by a particular God.
For example, many think they were created by a God who took 7 days to do the job.
That's not what Tyson believes.
So his agreement with them is rather minimal.

[Europa (OP)]

I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA

Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?

Yes, however I am also sure that humans are currently engineering new types of DNA to function on Mars, as God once did here.

[Bored chemist]

Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?

Yes

So , you are sure that Tyson is wrong, and therefore should not believe in God.
(Because his only "reason" for "belief" is something that you are sure is wrong.)

Meanwhile, in various bits of the world, people are killing each other because their invisible friend wants to be worshipped on a different day of the week or some such.

[Europa (OP)]

Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?

Yes

So , you are sure that Tyson is wrong, and therefore should not believe in God.
(Because his only "reason" for "belief" is something that you are sure is wrong.)

Meanwhile, in various bits of the world, people are killing each other because their invisible friend wants to be worshipped on a different day of the week or some such.

Actually I believe that Tyson is correct in a manner of speaking.  See Tyson talks about computing power in the future but then he makes the error of imagining that power in the present with simulations running on hard drives.  What I see is that all machines break, this includes all computers that either break or get old and outdated.  Now when God created his computer it walked away and reproduced itself slightly better than the original.  So you are a computer, DNA built you and your CPU uses the same electricity as the one that you are typing from now, only your brain uses far less voltage and produces it's own electricity.  So you and Tyson are both computer simulations that walked away, and are yet to become obsolete because of Gods engineering

Tyson just came to God and has his own way of admitting such