You say that today's scientists don't want to knock down pillars. I remember about 20 years ago when the first findings came out that the redshift of the most distant objects in the universe was far higher than we expected. It meant the universe's expansion was actually accelerating. That might not sound like a pillar was knocked down, but this was so radical a finding that it suggested the existence of something like a fifth force of nature. Around the same time, the measurements of galactic rotations suggested there was also more mass than we could see in the universe. These two ideas, together, meant that 96% of the universe was made of something we'd never knew existed. Think about that! We thought we had it all pretty much worked out, and then all of a sudden we find out we've missed 96% of everything! Because of those two pieces of evidence, a bunch of other teams jumped in and tried to replicate and disprove the findings, but it turned out to be supported every time. The physics community was split about what it all meant, but most now agree that we've indeed been missing nearly everything in the universe. It might not seem like a big deal to people outside of physics, but that was a monumental pillar that was knocked down, and it didn't topple easily.
You are literally proving my point. They didn't go back and question their preconceptions, they leapt ahead and decided to append a massive new field rather than reconsider, and are still tweaking and adjusting that new field today to get it to work. Dark energy, especially dark matter, was one of the surefire death knells of RET's credibility. Rather than consider maybe the issue was with, say, how they took observations and what they accounted for, they instead decided to suppose invisible masses that should have been detected long since even with just the few properties applied to it as is (and
never went back to reconsider what had previously been determined in light of it), and a mysterious force that they can't even explain how it does what they need it to do. They didn't knock down a pillar, they just added more and more to the top of it no matter how precariously it swayed. Absolutely no existing knowledge altered, it wasn't like they took the conclusion that their understanding of redshift was flawed say, they just kept things working the same way just with a new variable on play; questions were answered with unforeseen responses. The tradition stayed in place.
You have to do the same thing. You have to show impeccable evidence and say it doesn't fit with what we understand of the world today. The three-pole experiment would be perfect. I don't understand why anyone on this forum doesn't just do that experiment and do it perfectly. It would create a major question for any scientist to answer. You think a scientist who sees something like that, and who sees that the experiment was done without error, wouldn't want to know what the heck was going on? They'd go nuts trying to find something you did wrong. And if you did nothing wrong, they'd go nuts trying to understand exactly what is going on. It would be a joy to witness.
I know you think any scientist would just dismiss your experiment because they can't think outside of the global Earth model, but you're not basing that on actually talking to any scientists. You're basing that on an assumption that you must be right, so anyone with expertise who doesn't think you're right must either be essentially brainwashed or dishonest.
There is no such thing as impeccable evidence. And seriously, think about what you are saying. You aren't finding any actual experiment of an FE model, you're relying solely on your preconceptions of what that would be and going no further. We live on a flat Earth. All readings and experiments have
already been performed on a flat Earth. The number of actually accessible experiments with the slightest bearing on anything, particularly that are remotely doable for a typical person, is beyond minimal and the rest have already been shoehorned into RET. You won't get a brand new discovery, all you'd get is a better explanation, but that's not good enough because the scientific establishment is built on tradition, better=older/familiar rather than logical or reducing assumptions. It's all about toppling the existing theory, not about actual comparison, new experiments rather than seeing how well the ones already done tie in.
And you're just assuming I haven't talked to scientists, you're very wrong on that. I'm speaking from experience. They won't even entertain anything too 'outlandish,' there are enough papers to go through that there's no point in picking apart an experiment they already believe to be wrong. Besides, if they already think the claim is wrong then they'll just assume the paper's lying. They won't tear their hair out, they'll shrug it off.
You're acting as though what we're talking about is akin to some discovered oddity in G-Type stars or whatever. It isn't. Science has layers, a pillar that it is verboten to question, and layers out from that. Only the outermost get particularly dealt with, and the closer you get the more controversial anything would be. Beyond a certain point you're assumed wrong and nothing can change that.
So get out there and do it! Don't make your next post something about how it's fruitless. Say "Okay, I'm going to make this happen!" Do the experiment perfectly so nobody can poke holes in it, document the heck out of every step, and make it happen. Document the setup on this forum and I'll do whatever I can to help. 30 days from now you could have world-changing results in your pocket!
Again, there's no point in performing an experiment when the results would not be what you're claiming. Stop being so bloody performative. Best case scenario, even
if the Earth worked the way you were saying, even
if it got any interest, and even
if that interest was people trusting the paper's and documentation's word, the end result would be a few murmurs, a new discovery of dark temperature inversions or whatever, and a year from now they'll be heralding it as further proof of RET. If you don't want people to post about how dealing with academia is fruitless then fix your institutions, until then it needs to be called out.
Honestly, fixing the flaws in it is to me more important than FET. People will come to FET one way or another once there's a decent system that doesn't rely on tradition as value.
I say scientists go where the evidence leads and are more knowledgeable about the evidence that refutes a flat Earth than non-scientists are.
This is nonsense. They don't know what flat earth models
are, how could they possibly have any conception of what it would take to refute one?
This is the problem.
Recent Posts