Poll

Simple question. Is Earth moving?

No. It is completely stationary.
Yes. It is moving as alleged in the mainstream oblate spheroid model.
Yes. It is rising upwards, constantly.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2021, 06:55:42 AM »
On a more serious note, I have an idea to explain gravity and why the earth moves without any of us noticing it. Beneath the Ozone Layer, air pressure is Much greater then beyond it. There's a sharp drop off as pointed by other members discussing this topic. See "Flat earth inquiries into the firmament" https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17181.msg224307#msg224307

This helps explain why the atmosphere moves with the earth (along with friction, momentum, gravity and other phenomina) and why we can't sense it. Also keep in mind, whether the the earth is flat or round, it still tilts or turns at 15deg per hour. That's nothing, at least that we can feel.

This also helps explain why satellites can traverse such a large distance around the earth without serious energy output. RE calls it an orbit, I think it's because the higher atmospheres of gaseous liquids do move in a whirlpool around the sun (whether it's the sun inward spiralling consumption of space fuel or the earth stirring things up). Planets also orbit in such a way without an engine. They just gently float in space following the liquid current of space. This is just an idea so far, I'm really looking for more ideas.

Why would a satellite need much in the way of energy? Energy isn’t required to maintain a speed, it’s required to overcome a resistive force. Airliners need engines when cruising to overcome drag. There is hardly any drag at all in orbit. Satellites are given the initial kinetic energy needed for orbit by whatever launches them, and then they are pretty much good to go.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2021, 09:46:30 PM »
Bob theres a host of great information in this article.  It helps explain the altitude of low earth orbiting objects and how its even affected by the suns intensity.  93 miles is the distance for such objects to make one revolution around the planet in a day with little imput from the satellite.

Thanks!
Is the Earth flat and sky is round?  Or is the Earth round and the sky flat?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2021, 10:05:26 PM »
Bob theres a host of great information in this article.  It helps explain the altitude of low earth orbiting objects and how its even affected by the suns intensity.  93 miles is the distance for such objects to make one revolution around the planet in a day with little imput from the satellite.

Thanks!

You're welcome.

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2021, 06:51:11 AM »
Pete, you are the one who is deliberately reframing the question... I am the one who framed the original question. Not sure why you're lying about that since anyone can verify this.

But thanks for finally addressing the question, even though you're basically just admitting there is no possible explanation for what you believe to be happening.

So yeah, I dislike UA. It's the least plausible theory. Your inability to offer even a single possible cause for it confirms how implausible it is.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12629
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2021, 12:40:47 PM »
Pete, you are the one who is deliberately reframing the question... I am the one who framed the original question.
I was specifically responding to your claim of what is and isn't plausible. One position is easily verifiable, experimentally. The other is "it just happens, duh". Neither provides a source, or cause, so discussing superiority based on that is rather impossible. If you want to discard any model that doesn't explain where the effects of gravity come from, then you're pretty much left with RE's gravitation, with all of its problems.

You wouldn't be particularly happy with me if I told you UA is "just an inherent function of our universe", for the same reason the "things just fall" theory is not popular among FE'ers.

Meanwhile, my offer for you to document your alternative model remains standing - as it did for years. It's actually somewhat amusing how keen you are to talk about what FE is not, but how reluctant you are to simply have a write-up of yours published.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2021, 12:49:18 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2021, 06:13:09 PM »
Pete. That was quite the word vomit to avoid your inability to propose a cause for the allegation that all of Earth is rising upwards and eternally. I don't blame you for trying to distract from your position though. It's quite absurd.

I agree with Musk and Bostrom and others who say the chance of us being in base reality is one in billions. (if not trillions). Like in any simulation, the rising and falling of things is governed by programming, and is an inherent function or fundamental interaction of that simulation/reality.

There is no need for Earth to rise upwards or for it to move in the way mainstream science alleges. There is no need for it to move at all. It's implausible, impractical, and unnecessary.

I am no real fan of Dubay, as you allege without basis, because he does not discuss simulation theory. I am also no fan of you pretending to quote me when in fact you're lying about what I said. I'm happy to explain my position even though you can't explain your own.

The sooner flat earth theory meets simulation theory, the sooner more people will realize the truth about our reality. The delusion that we're in base reality is one that many don't want to let go of, but it's necessary for ascertainment of the truth. The delusion of a rising Earth is no different.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12629
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2021, 06:30:59 PM »
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.

See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2021, 06:34:10 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2021, 04:34:57 PM »
Here are the cold hard facts. By the way, speed only makes sense relativistically. You can't have a speed if you don't have something to compare it against.

1. The Earth moves at a relative speed of 66,000 miles per hour (107,000 km/hr) around the Sun, at the center of the Solar System.
2. Through local space, the Solar System moves at a relative speed of 43,000 miles per hour (70,000 km/hr) towards the star system Vega (in the Hercules Constellation).
3. The Solar System and its neighbors orbit the black hole Sag. A* at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at a speed of 483,000 miles per hour (792,000 km/hr) in a counter-clockwise motion as viewed from galactic North.
4. Relative to the Andromeda galaxy, the Milky Way Galaxy is moving towards it at a speed of 260,000 miles per hour (402,000 km/hr). They are expected to collide in some 4.5 billion years.
5. All Galaxies in our local group are travelling towards a tremendous cluster mass of galaxies called the Great Attractor, at a mind-bending 1,342,162 miles per hour (2,160,000 km/hr)

So, as we speak and sit here typing stuff out, we are hurtling through space at over a million miles an hour towards a mysterious mass of over 1000 galaxies. Speed is just a measure of the difference between relative objects.

So, you wouldn't be totally wrong to say that the Earth is moving, possibly even accelerating, at a ridonculous rate. However, that has nothing to do with a reasoning for why objects fall on Earth.

Even small children are taught in school now that Gravity is NOT a downwards pulling Force. It is the curved geometry of spacetime itself. Newton wrongfully posited that objects that are not influenced by forces move along straight lines. Einstein corrected the theory, in fact, objects that are not influenced by forces move along geodesic curves in space time. The falling of objects has nothing to do with, and doesn't even require the application of an upwards force from below.

Whether it is the earth revolving around the Sun, or the Sun revolving around Sag A*, or Sag A* hurtling towards the Great Attractor, all things are not influenced by any force rather they are moving along geodesic curves in space that is caused by objects with great mass.

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2021, 06:23:36 PM »
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.

See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?

You still don't have a proposed cause for UA. And I disagree that UA is mainstream. I've never heard anyone argue in support of it besides yourself. It absolutely cannot be verified. Only the effects can be verified. And UA is the least plausible possible explanation.

See you in a few months when you admit you still have no possible explanation for what is causing Earth to allegedly rise.

*

Offline RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2021, 04:00:47 AM »
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.

See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?

How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth? UA requires the entire Earth to be accelerating at the same constant and therefore we should expect to get the same downward acceleration for falling objects everywhere on Earth.

Do you have any mechanism to offer to correct this? Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy?  ::)
A rational man

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2021, 04:50:45 AM »
@razatd

Quote
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?

One way is by refuting/denying that "observed fact".

Another is by accepting that "observed fact" and attributing it to another cause - perhaps the same one that is currently pointed to - the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances (just without fictional "gravity fields" which exist only in equation).

Quote
Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy?  ::)

The people who most frequently talk about conspiracies on this site are the round earth acolytes - such as yourself and in a similar manner.  The flat earth researchers most often prefer to talk about the topics at hand, which are most often considered "scientific" or in the realm of science in any case.

Your incredulity is not helping you to objectively evaluate this subject earnestly, and there is VERY good reason to do so (and it has little to do with the shape of the earth).
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 04:52:38 AM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2021, 05:14:42 AM »
The Wiki seems to attribute tides to the gravitational attraction of the moon and stars.  Additionally, the observed and documented differences in gravitational attraction in different areas on earth are also attributed to the moon & stars.  This implication in the Wiki causes some problems.  The mass of the moon & stars are exhibiting the property of gravity, but there is no property of gravity exhibited by the mass of the dry land of the earth.  The implication is that mass of the moon & stars is different from the mass of the earth, except for the water of the oceans.  Dry land of the earth has weight but no mass, while the water of the oceans has mass, but no weight.  This doesn’t make any sense.  Universal acceleration isn't a viable alternative to gravity.  The experimental evidence (in the zetetic manner) doesn't support it either.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 05:19:44 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2021, 02:50:27 PM »
@razatd

Quote
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?

One way is by refuting/denying that "observed fact".

Another is by accepting that "observed fact" and attributing it to another cause - perhaps the same one that is currently pointed to - the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances (just without fictional "gravity fields" which exist only in equation).

Quote
Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy?  ::)

The people who most frequently talk about conspiracies on this site are the round earth acolytes - such as yourself and in a similar manner.  The flat earth researchers most often prefer to talk about the topics at hand, which are most often considered "scientific" or in the realm of science in any case.

Your incredulity is not helping you to objectively evaluate this subject earnestly, and there is VERY good reason to do so (and it has little to do with the shape of the earth).

How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate? It makes no sense. By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.

Also let’s grant that There are local variances. Now the source of those variances must be UA and not gravity. That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?

Round Earth people talk about conspiracies?  :o Give me a break. Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs. Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.
A rational man

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1398
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2021, 05:57:37 PM »
Celestial gravitation in the wiki implies that the moon can attract the water on the earth and can cause other observed gravimetric anomalies.  Gravity does exist but only between heavenly bodies and a mass on the earth.  If you used a gravimeter to take a measurement you would have to take into account the position of the moon first.  You could take a series of measurements at a fixed location on the earth as the moon passed overhead and expect to see some predictable changes in your readings.  This doesn't happen so the idea of celestial gravitation is invalid. QED. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2021, 07:40:20 PM »
@Razatd

Quote
How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate?

I can imagine many ways.  Can't you?  If you are asking how gravity works you will get an equally unsatisfying answer.  In gravitation, an imagined and non-real psuedoforce, it is assumed to be the matter itself causing the variance - I see no reason why that exact same reasoning cannot be used in the case of UA.  UA is mostly just a convention/sign reversal, and causes no issue for the physics (why would it?).

Quote
It makes no sense.

I more or less agree with you (in the case of UA and Gravitation which are roughly equivalent, differing by a sign change), however it CAN make more sense if you earnestly try to conceptualize it in GOOD FAITH (not from the heavily biased, and un-objective/anti-scientific, perspective that it MUST be irreconcilable/paradoxical nonsense)

Quote
By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.

Why not? UA IS the gravity...  However I can appreciate that currently, afaik, there isn't a proposed mechanism for what UA does - but in my view that is slightly BETTER (and certainly more accommodating to new addendum / caveat as you are suggesting in this case) than the presumptive gravitational view which proposes a mechanism that is ill-defined and demonstrably non-real.

Quote
Also let’s grant that There are local variances.

Sure.

Quote
That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?

The UA could very well still be universal, and another interaction between that UA and the particular matter (or structure/ordering, perhaps) causes the minor variances we detect locally by the surface.  It's easy to explain things - dreadfully easy.  It is much more difficult to demonstrate them, and even more so to experimentally validate them to make them science!  For instance, gravitation has NEVER passed such rigor and is not a part of science as a result.  It is unvalidated speculation at the absolute best, and delusion at worst.  Newton understood gravitation was unscientific, philosophically unsound, and anathema to all of physics when he invoked it - and you can read about it in his own pen if you wish.

Quote
Round Earth people talk about conspiracies?  :o Give me a break.

Right, you come to sites like this where you wrongly assume (due to conditioned bias and propaganda) that everyone interested in studying this topic, or truly considering that the earth may be another shape than we are taught, believe in ridiculous conspiracies.  The ones forwarding and assuming bizarre omnipotent conspiracies are the apologists for RE, like yourself.  If you continue to study this subject, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have about it.  The "flat earth conspiracy" bias helps to keep your largely unevaluated/unvalidated beliefs about the shape of the world safe from ridicule and criticism.  As long as any criticism depends on an "impossible conspiracy", there is no reason to take it seriously (so you tell yourself, as a subconscious mantra no doubt) - which is why this line of "reasoning" is so heavily advertised and propagated/promoted.

No conspiracy of any size is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it always is (historically, contemporarily - you name it).

Quote
Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs.

This is a common misunderstanding.  Some do, that is true - but it has nothing to do with conforming to beliefs.  A large part of flat earth research is recognizing, acutely, the difference between knowledge and belief.  Belief has NO place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.   If you BELIEVE the world is round, flat, or dodecahedron - you have FAITH not fact.

The ones who more or less discard the "proof" from MIC agencies do so for valid and defensible reasons.  The wiki here can help you understand some of the perspectives/conclusions of SOME of the researchers here.  For instance, the TFES considers that "space agencies" are not faking the shape of the world.  IF there is a conspiracy of some kind, it is conceivably quite small - and MUCH more likely to be for military purpose (what are rockets REALLY for?) - as is suggested on the wiki here.  I highly recommend giving it a read through to get a sense of the wildly varying (and often incompatible) views out there!

Quote
Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.

This is yet another, heavily advertised/propagated, misconception.  As I said, it is raised by people like yourself in exactly this context - most generally NOT by flat earth researchers.  YOU are convinced there is some grand conspiracy required, but your reasoning is unsound and indefensible (in fact, you are just repeating someone else's criticism).

In any case, whether or not there are conspiracies involved (A conspiracy is merely a synonym for crime - planned by more than 1.  They happen at all times in huge numbers.) is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant to the shape of the earth and to determining it with certainty as an individual researcher. 

Even if it were true that the pictures/artwork we receive from NASA were all 100% genuine, they are not measurement of the world and they require abject appeal to authority (are unvalidated and unvalidatable), and in this case - that "authority" are, historically/repeatedly, untrustworthy MIC entities with overt military/profiteering/domination agendas.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 07:50:20 PM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2021, 07:52:41 PM »
Even if it were true that the pictures/artwork we receive from NASA were all 100% genuine, they are not measurement of the world and they require abject appeal to authority (are unvalidated and unvalidatable), and in this case - historically/repeatedly untrustworthy MIC entities with military/domination agendas.

NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?

Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2021, 08:03:31 PM »
@Stack

Quote
NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?

There is no hypothesis being discussed here.  I care a lot about science, and it hurts me when people abuse terminology.  Hypothesis, in a scientific context, has a rigorous and inflexible definition (as well as a singular purpose).

It is true that there is a lot of measurement conducted by those agencies/affiliates.  As an independent researcher, you can evaluate and trust any dataset you wish - but the onus is on you to validate it before accepting it as true.

For this reason, many independent researchers choose to avoid datasets that require abject appeal to authority (especially from overtly untrustworthy MIC entities) and cannot be validated/verified independently. 

Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 08:18:12 PM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1236
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2021, 09:05:35 PM »
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

Good point.  I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation.  These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps. 

I've also done stick and shadow measurements, by myself and with friends across the globe, and untold hours of stargazing and solar and lunar observations. All of it fits with the model of a round Earth orbiting a star, and the moon orbiting the Earth.

I've measured the curvature by various methods of viewing distant objects and verifying how much should be hidden. By seeing the horizon drop by the expected amount as I gain altitude.

Only one model supports all my own personal, independent observations, the round one.

So by my own personal experience I know the Earth is round. No faith required, blind or otherwise. 

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2021, 09:51:18 PM »

I can imagine many ways.  Can't you?  If you are asking how gravity works you will get an equally unsatisfying answer.  In gravitation, an imagined and non-real psuedoforce, it is assumed to be the matter itself causing the variance - I see no reason why that exact same reasoning cannot be used in the case of UA.  UA is mostly just a convention/sign reversal, and causes no issue for the physics (why would it?).


The matter itself causes the variance...but you're saying that matter can't exert that kind of force. You can't have it both ways. Either matter can't exert such tiny forces and gravity is in fact caused by us constantly accelerating, along with all the visible celestial bodies, via some mysterious and unexplained energy source which oddly imparts no heat to us whatsoever, or it is entirely possible for mass to attract mass, in a way that aligns with a huge swath of measurements, from the microscopic to the planetary.

Why do you find it so hard believe that mass could attract mass? Do you accept that magnetism is real? That electrical charges attract and repel? Why then not mass? The only difference is the magnitude of the force, which is far, far less than other forces. What is it about your observations of the world around you that makes it so hard to find gravity credible?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
Re: Is Earth Moving?
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2021, 10:55:54 PM »
@Stack

Quote
NASA and other space agencies/companies take a mountain of measurements as well as produce pictures/artwork. Why are you not including measurements in your 100% genuine hypothesis?

There is no hypothesis being discussed here.  I care a lot about science, and it hurts me when people abuse terminology.  Hypothesis, in a scientific context, has a rigorous and inflexible definition (as well as a singular purpose).

Oh, just stop with your constant holier than thou "I alone know what is right and credible" and all those who differ are committing a mortal sin against the very foundations of scientific exploration, Your "caring" is neither here nor there. Your hypocrisy, on the other hand, is very evident. You get all fired up over word usage here yet you defend on the other site where someone makes up their own definitions to words like "mass" & "volume" just because it suits their theory. Enough with your caring. It's beyond pedantic and completely self-adulating.

It is true that there is a lot of measurement conducted by those agencies/affiliates.  As an independent researcher, you can evaluate and trust any dataset you wish - but the onus is on you to validate it before accepting it as true.

For this reason, many independent researchers choose to avoid datasets that require abject appeal to authority (especially from overtly untrustworthy MIC entities) and cannot be validated/verified independently. 

And there you go again with the hypocrisy. Out of one side of your mouth you say a conspiracy is not relevant to the flat earth notion and out of the other you continually pepper in MIC's and their untrustworthiness. Which means multitudes of people are lying. Equals conspiracy. Not to mention how you always claim that explanations that you disagree with come from incompetent scientists. Really? They're all incompetent? Because you don't agree with them?

And as for personally validating/verifying any of your contrary thinking, what have you done to do so? How have you validated/verified all of your dislikes of mainstream science? So far you just seem to appeal to the authority of yourself.

Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

I never said it should be blind faith. Personally, as JSS mentioned, I, like many, have flown/traveled to many places far and wide. All of my travel distances, durations, routes have equaled what is represented on Globe earth maps. No Flat earth model, if there really even is one, has even come close to being accurate. That alone, without the aid of "untrustworthy" conspiring MICs and the appeal to the bevy of incompetent physicists, validates/verifies to me what is what.