... but they just said that it can. You check it, and you will receive gibberish. Congrats, your value is .67845278462 and if you change that by .000000001 in either direction things break. Tell me why it ended up at that number. The numbers, what do they mean?
To be clear, I'm not arguing that is is evidence, i merely arguing that it could be a result of how they chose to render our simulation. And just because it's more computationally expensive on our side does not necessarily mean it's more expensive on their side, because we don't know what the mechanics of the deeper layer may have been.
For example, it would be a lot less computationally expensive to render accuracy in a simulation for us down to cellular level than it would be down to atomic scale. From there, we could simply replicate the rules of how molecules work without actually rendering them, such as "cells seem to have a finite amount of energy based on food you consume, and we can model the mathematics of how that works, but we can't seem to find a physical structure that allows that to function"
I don't know what language you natively speak, but I would love to learn! Pm me if you're interested and we can call and just talk. That's typically the best way to learn the finer details of a language, just speak with a native speaker regularly. As far as grammar and vocabulary, though it doesn't always show in my comments, I'm quite adept.I also used to be a tutor for a ton of people, although I never taught anyone English, so I'm quite good at teaching and communicating as well.
Quantum is weird. If we are in a simulation, that would explain a lot of that, because the quantum effects we see are actually just light simulations of much deeper mechanics.
As such, if we were simulating a universe, there's every chance that we may decide to only simulate down to individual atoms. So the people in the simulation would probably discover atoms, but then they would have to come up with their own version of quantum mechanics to describe the effects that we know come from quarks.
The point is that each layer may choose to simulate things slightly lighter to save on resources, and you would have no way of knowing.
But the airplane has a verifiable answer. If the starting force is applied to the wheels, which push off the ground, then the airplane will remain stationary. But if it uses jet engines or props, which push off the air, then the plane will move forward.
Funnily enough, if the wind speed is the same and opposite as the speed of the props/engine, then the plane will remain stationary horizontally. That being said, it's wings would still generate lift, so the plane would start to raise while remaining in the same spot.
Hell yeah!