Why assume that an ever-expanding Universe is actually simulated/exists?
Because you could observe it.
Really I don't like simulation theory. To do it, you need some kind of computer more complex, than what it should simulate. Also, that rises a question - who create that computer and why. You end with much more questions than before.
It could be a projection, for example. I know it sounds absurd, but it could, couldn't it?
It should be an enormous holographic realtime projection. Projector will be more complex than projected Universe.
Could you show me this website?
It is not a website. It is an antenna, amplifier, 137Mhz receiver, ADC and software decoder. You could do it for less than $20 using cheap RTL2838 based DVB-T receiver. Or use any transiever that could receive 137Mhz band if you already have one. There are a lot of howtos on receiving raw satellite images on rtl-sdr.com. Simpliest setup is RTL2838 USB dongle, V-pole antenna from oldTV set, and simple opensource software like xwxapt for NOAA satellites or glrpt for Meteor satellites.
You'd need a few dozens of them, but why should that be a problem?
Just receive a picture, and try to think out how it could be done with baloons. You will need a baloon at 800km flying with 7.4km/s speed around the globe.
The speed and the altitude are just numbers. There's no way to verify that.
It is right in what and how you receive. The area you see on image and speed of arriving image strips. Also all that doppler effect and other stuff. You have everything to verify it entirely by yourself without depending on any third-party.
That doesn't look real to me.
Because it is a cuts from Russian educational movie for children wiith animations and all that stuff. They cut out big part with animations with formulas and drawings of orbital mechanics of flight. I don't remember correctly, but it was 7 or 8 grade in school, astronomy lessons. There was an enormous number of educational movies in USSR that heavily used in education process in schools. They are not like Discovery "popular science" thing, they full of formulas, explanations, experiments, and all that scientific stuff layed out sequentially and logically connected. It's a pity that NauchFilm don't have some website with online collection of that movies, you have to order them by mail on DVD.
I think you may be falling for the Russia good/US bad narrative that's been going on over there and in Eastern Europe for decades
No, I fail into logic of sequence of events and continuity of technology achievements. It does not look suspicious if you began Moon exploration from perfectly possible with existing rockets shooting dummy things to the Moon with misses and failures, then few attempts to orbit the Moon, again with normal rate of failures and problems, than attempt to soft-land on surface, again with regular try-fail rate, then land and strat from moon, and so on. Looks just like ordinary workflow. Not like you barely succed in LEO flights and next day you send manned ship to the Moon and everything goes fine.
I have no any distinct opinion on US Moon Landing. I know only that there are a lot of suspicious inconsistencies in what NASA presented to the public. It is perfectly possible that NASA really did manned moon landing, but with a lot of failures and crew deaths, so they had to create that fake show for public for political reasons.
I'm shure that US Moon Landing was technically possibe at the time. But I don't know had it been done really or not and I don't care, because I think it is not important at all.
Why assume that an ever-expanding Universe is actually simulated/exists?
Because you could observe it.
Really I don't like simulation theory. To do it, you need some kind of computer more complex, than what it should simulate. Also, that rises a question - who create that computer and why. You end with much more questions than before.
It could be a projection, for example. I know it sounds absurd, but it could, couldn't it?
It should be an enormous holographic realtime projection. Projector will be more complex than projected Universe.
Could you show me this website?
It is not a website. It is an antenna, amplifier, 137Mhz receiver, ADC and software decoder. You could do it for less than $20 using cheap RTL2838 based DVB-T receiver. Or use any transiever that could receive 137Mhz band if you already have one. There are a lot of howtos on receiving raw satellite images on rtl-sdr.com. Simpliest setup is RTL2838 USB dongle, V-pole antenna from oldTV set, and simple opensource software like xwxapt for NOAA satellites or glrpt for Meteor satellites.
You'd need a few dozens of them, but why should that be a problem?
Just receive a picture, and try to think out how it could be done with baloons. You will need a baloon at 800km flying with 7.4km/s speed.
The speed and the altitude are just numbers. There's no way to verify that.
It is right in what and how you receive. The area you see on image and speed of arriving image strips. Also all that doppler effect and other stuff.
That doesn't look real to me.
Because it is a cuts from Russian educational movie for children wiith animations and all that stuff. They cut out big part with animations with formulas and drawings of orbital mechanics of flight. I don't remember correctly, but it was 7 or 8 grade in school, astronomy lessons. There was an enormous number of educational movies in USSR that heavily used in education process in schools. It's a pity that NauchFilm don't have some website with online collection of that movies, you have to order them by mail on DVD.
I think you may be falling for the Russia good/US bad narrative that's been going on over there and in Eastern Europe for decades
No, I fail into logic of sequence of events and continuity of technology achievements. It does not look suspicious if you began Moon exploration from perfectly possible with existing rockets shooting dummy things to the Moon with misses and failures, then few attempts to orbit the Moon, again with normal rate of failures and problems, than attempt to soft-land on surface, again with regular try-fail rate, then land and strat from moon, and so on. Looks just like ordinary workflow. Not like you barely succed in LEO flights and next day you send manned ship to the Moon and everything goes fine.
I have no any distinct opinion on US Moon Landing. I know only that there are a lot of suspicious inconsistencies in what NASA presented to the public. It is perfectly possible that NASA really did manned moon landing, but with a lot of failures and crew deaths, so they had to create that fake show for public for political reasons.
I'm shure that US Moon Landing was technically possibe at the time. But I don't know had it been done really or not and I don't care, because I think it is not important at all.