*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #60 on: March 26, 2019, 07:39:45 PM »
JRowe, can you cite some specific sources from which you are drawing the claim of how modern science treats new discoveries?

Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #61 on: March 26, 2019, 07:44:59 PM »
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis.  Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are.  Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.

If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help.  Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 07:46:58 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2019, 01:10:05 AM »
JRowe, can you cite some specific sources from which you are drawing the claim of how modern science treats new discoveries?

Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
How on earth do you get that from all I've said?

If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis.  Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are.  Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.

If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help.  Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.

What is even the point in responding to you when you just outright ignore what my post said?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #63 on: March 27, 2019, 02:01:14 AM »
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.

I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:

1. They are the most open minded people I have ever met

2. They believe things based on evidence not on feelings

3. They are willing to entertain just about any idea

4. They require evidence to change their beliefs

5. They are most critical about their OWN theories.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #64 on: March 27, 2019, 02:03:42 AM »
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis.  Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are.  Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.

If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help.  Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.

What is even the point in responding to you when you just outright ignore what my post said?
What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it?  No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2019, 12:09:24 PM »
I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:
Try questioning one of their pillars, try to encourage more than a relatively minor tweak, modification or addition to what's 'established,' see what happens.

What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it?  No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
How about you take a look at what I'm actually saying? I shouldn't need to keep asking this. This is legitimately pathetic. I explain at length what I believe and why, you throw that all out the window to fit me in some little narrative box that you want to be the case, despite the fact you know full well it's not. And you wonder why I have zero respect for your 'science.'

The problem with your science is that it's long since stopped being about the scientific method, and started being about tradition, and you are a perfect example of that. Rather than honest response, you resort to 'it's different so it's wrong, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say.'
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #66 on: March 27, 2019, 12:55:31 PM »
I think its funny that you think that any member here (except maybe QED) speaks for the scientific community - aka published scientists. I am just an engineer.

Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.

And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2019, 01:07:16 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #67 on: March 27, 2019, 01:42:06 PM »
I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:
Try questioning one of their pillars, try to encourage more than a relatively minor tweak, modification or addition to what's 'established,' see what happens.

What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it?  No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
How about you take a look at what I'm actually saying? I shouldn't need to keep asking this. This is legitimately pathetic. I explain at length what I believe and why, you throw that all out the window to fit me in some little narrative box that you want to be the case, despite the fact you know full well it's not. And you wonder why I have zero respect for your 'science.'
What you believe won't change anything.  Experimental evidence will. 

The problem with your science is that it's long since stopped being about the scientific method, and started being about tradition, and you are a perfect example of that. Rather than honest response, you resort to 'it's different so it's wrong, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say.'
I never said "it's different so it's wrong".  However, challenging the status quo is always an uphill battle.  Why should science be any different?  I don't think that you understand the degree of rigor that modern science has to go though to be accepted in the first place.  Successfully challenging the status quo is a lot of hard work, but it does happen.  Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe.  Those were not minor revisions to the status quo.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

manicminer

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #68 on: March 27, 2019, 01:49:58 PM »
Quote
Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe.

Good example. The BB theory always predicted that there should be radiation, representing effectively the echo of the big bang permeating throughout the Universe at a temperature of just over 3K.  This radiation would not necessary according to the SS theory which stated that the age of the Universe was infinite. When this radiation, now known as the Cosmic Background was discovered in the mid 1960s by accident, that spelled the end of the story as far as the SS theory was concerned.


Science has never set out to prove something right or wrong. It simply looks for the best way of explaining what we see and experience in nature and the Universe. If the predictions that it makes from the models it develops turn out to be successful then we must be thinking along the right lines.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #69 on: March 27, 2019, 01:57:23 PM »
I think its funny that you think that any member here (except maybe QED) speaks for the scientific community - aka published scientists. I am just an engineer.

Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.

And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
Or the REer just doesn't bother trying to understand what it is the FEer has said, and insists that they're right in their understanding of the world just because. Take a look at yourself.
I call it like I see it. Your 'published scientists' just outright ignore anything contrary, you've constructed a definition so that the scientists that would react in the public eye are just celebrities to discount, ignoring the fact they still contribute to academia. They're still part of the system.

What you believe won't change anything.  Experimental evidence will. 
Yes, let's run an experiment on the ways in which academia responds to experiments, that isn't a logical incoherency at all.

Quote
I never said "it's different so it's wrong".  However, challenging the status quo is always an uphill battle.  Why should science be any different?  I don't think that you understand the degree of rigor that modern science has to go though to be accepted in the first place.  Successfully challenging the status quo is a lot of hard work, but it does happen.  Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe.  Those were not minor revisions to the status quo.
You don't need to say it, it's palpably clear in how you act. You completely ignore what I actually say because it's not the narrative you want to believe. The steady state universe was at best a placeholder, no one had any evidence for it. The first time it had any degree of popularity was about the time people actually had the resources to refute it. It was never the status quo, it was a "Well we need an answer to this, we don't know anything real yet, let's just use it for now."
I understand the degree of rigour science uses just fine. That was my problem. Pay. Attention.

Good example. The BB theory always predicted that there should be radiation, representing effectively the echo of the big bang permeating throughout the Universe at a temperature of just over 3K.  This radiation would not necessary according to the SS theory which stated that the age of the Universe was infinite. When this radiation, now known as the Cosmic Background was discovered in the mid 1960s by accident, that spelled the end of the story as far as the SS theory was concerned.
Don't make things up. Hubble observed evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe in 1929, well before the steady state universe had any major degree of popularity. The simple fact is no one cared because they didn't have the technology to get solid data. It never got formalised as the big bang for a while, but an expanding universe vs a steady universe were always competitors, the steady state universe only got any popularity when the expansion started to become more supported and people rushed to defend it.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #70 on: March 27, 2019, 02:05:13 PM »
I am still waiting on cited sources to backup your claim that people are straight up dismissing your theories or anyone else's theories - by a real scientist.

Even on your own website you make this claim.

http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/4/dual-earth-theory-faq

"Why should I accept DET over any alternatives?

Not only does it rely on fewer assumptions to explain all observations (setting it above RET and classical FET models), but it remains unrefuted and, ultimately, unaddressed. When presented, the model is met with mocking, but there is rarely any attempt to actually address the model, and more often than not those attempts are addressed in the model itself.
If you disagree, and believe you can refute the model, you are encouraged to do so. I do not object to disagreement, only dishonesty."

Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?

Your claims on your own website have gone unrefuted and unaddressed because there has been no one posting on your forum. Is this because you a) haven't published your work b) haven't presented it to anyone c) no one really has visited your forum d) you deleted comments on your forum or e) something else?
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2019, 02:14:06 PM »
JRowe,

You are most welcome to continue believing this about scientists, I understand the motivation behind it: it insulates you from challenging your beliefs. If all scientists are biased, then you need not consider what they say. This is a lazy way out, and in taking it, you become what you detest.

Tyson is a scientist, and an entertainer. When he wears the hat of an entertainer, he is not doing science, and he says all sorts of shit. When he publishes research, he is a scientist, and his address is quite different. If you want to know Tyson as a scientist then read his research. Don’t assess him as a scientist by how he acts on a talk show. That’s just absurd.

You are correct about Hubble and SS vs BB. What you don’t understand is that two ideas run parallel while both are investigated. Even when some evidence is found for one, many folks continue to study both. This is because all ideas are only tentative, and scientists have open minds.

The narrative you require science to have is self-serving. It supports your insulated position, and hence no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise; you will continue to not “call it as you see it,” but instead “call it as you need to see it,” so that you feel vindicated in your position.

Ultimately, it only does you a disservice.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2019, 07:41:43 PM »
What you believe won't change anything.  Experimental evidence will. 
Yes, let's run an experiment on the ways in which academia responds to experiments, that isn't a logical incoherency at all.
I think I see your problem.  It seems that you're confusing the scientific community with academia.  Granted, scientists are usually trained in academia and a lot of scientific research happens there, the greater scientific community and academia are by no means the same thing.  Academia takes its cues from the scientific community, not the other way around.

If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned.  However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2019, 10:16:08 PM »
You are correct about Hubble and SS vs BB. What you don’t understand is that two ideas run parallel while both are investigated. Even when some evidence is found for one, many folks continue to study both. This is because all ideas are only tentative, and scientists have open minds.
Until they stop. The models jostle, go back and forth, then with the knowledge of the time one gets preferred and the other left by the wayside. If a century later something new gets discovered that favours the other, no one will care, they'll find a way to tweak the accepted model and go on blindly. This is my problem. I shouldn't need to keep repeating it. Of course I'm going to have to aren't I? You'll never acknowledge it, you'll just go on insisting I have the motive you want me to rather than the one I have stated, explained and demonstrated.

If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned.  However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?

Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?
I'm not ignoring it. I've answered it, I've pointed out the many times I have answered and explained it and given literally all it is possible to give. The problem is you don't care. Like the scientists you admire, you're only interested in tweaking and modifying until it fits with the cosy bubble you've built for yourself. I'm a FEer, so I must just be taking the easy way out, I must just be avoiding, I must just be lying. Look at the multiple choice you give; you assume I must be covering something up, that there haven't been several visitors (as seen by the few pages of threads), because the notion that the problem might not be with me is just unthinkable to you. You are a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about, and you're utterly blind to that fact.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

manicminer

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2019, 11:52:24 PM »
Quote
Don't make things up

Not quite sure what you think I made up.  I'm not in the habit of making things up. The discovery of the CMB in the mid 1960w put the validity of the BB theory over any other beyond doubt.  Think or say whatever you want that is the truth.

If what I said before was 'made up' then this article from Wikipedia is also made up then according to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
« Last Edit: March 27, 2019, 11:59:18 PM by manicminer »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #75 on: March 28, 2019, 12:08:31 AM »
If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned.  However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?
Do you think that industry does all of its R&D in academia?  And what do you think that peer-reviewed science journals are for?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #76 on: March 28, 2019, 12:33:49 AM »
Quote
Don't make things up

Not quite sure what you think I made up.  I'm not in the habit of making things up. The discovery of the CMB in the mid 1960w put the validity of the BB theory over any other beyond doubt.  Think or say whatever you want that is the truth.

If what I said before was 'made up' then this article from Wikipedia is also made up then according to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Or you could read what I actually said. You even took the time to cut out the link to the post. This is pathetic.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14067.msg188127#msg188127

If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned.  However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?
Do you think that industry does all of its R&D in academia?  And what do you think that peer-reviewed science journals are for?
R&D is a rather loaded term. Some of it is concerned strictly with finding a way to apply what has already been observed, that's not relevant to this at all. The handful of institutes geared towards pushing frontiers though still need to publish their results else what's the point? They still rely on academia.
What sets those science journals apart from the rest of it?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #77 on: March 28, 2019, 11:41:26 AM »
No, you havent posted any evidence to show someone has been mocking you. All you have done is stated that it has happened. Show me an email reply to your research that you have submitted, or a link to something. Claiming it here with a text reply on this forum does not constitute evidence.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #78 on: March 28, 2019, 01:48:15 PM »
No, you havent posted any evidence to show someone has been mocking you. All you have done is stated that it has happened. Show me an email reply to your research that you have submitted, or a link to something. Claiming it here with a text reply on this forum does not constitute evidence.
Wow. You really are just that blinkered aren't you?
If you are going to ignore everything I have already said there is literally nothing I could ever supply that you won't just cry 'faked!' at. Don't ask questions when you don't care about the answers and stop wasting everybody's time.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #79 on: March 28, 2019, 03:14:50 PM »
I'm not being narrow minded. You have posted absolutely no reference to any one thing that you or someone else has submitted and had it laughed. Yet, you continually reference having it done to you and others by a legitimate person from the scientific community. I am not talking about a general response to the FE community by Tyson or Nye in a random YouTube video. You continually reference yours and others FE research as being mocked by scientists. Yet, you provide no evidence of this whatsoever. Please show me what you or someone else has submitted in good faith to the scientific research community and show evidence that it has been rejected. Not some YouTube video or response on here.

And now you are just resorting ad hominem attacks on me. I have not cried fake at you once. And I won't cry fake at you if you provide me evidence. I, contrary to FEers, don't cry fake at everything that proves me wrong. I am legitimately asking for evidence to back up your claims.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 03:16:50 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.