Why are independent scientists globers?

There are many independent scientists and astronommers who are'nt working for big organs like NASA or any government entity. There are amateur astronommers who observe sky by their owns. If the earth is flat, why do not they understand this fact?

Why is anyone, anything?

Some independent scientists are flat earthers too. Look at our illustratious leader of this society 'John Davis'. He's been on podcasts and he's been interviewed as part of a book which you can right now buy on sale!

https://www.amazon.com/Subversive-Interviews-Radicals-Brian-Whitney/dp/1909394548

Hes also very hard at work writing his own book due in good time.

Have you not heard of him? I thought everyone would have

There are many independent scientists and astronommers who are'nt working for big organs like NASA or any government entity. There are amateur astronommers who observe sky by their owns. If the earth is flat, why do not they understand this fact?

The system is based on the model that the earth is a sphere. Even when you are an independent scientist or amateur astronomer, you accept the knowledge and experience on this subject. Otherwise, it is unlikely that you will be successful in what you do. All terminalogy and jargon are built on it.

But there are observers who defend the flat earth, albeit in the minority. They are constantly sharing images of stars and other objects. However, people defending the flat earth face many obstacles and sabotage. This situation prevents them from making themselves known to wider audiences. For example, if you take this site, its regular members such as Notsoskeptical, wolvaccine, Stash, jackblack are fierce globalists. These people are here by NASA to thwart flat earthers, create disinformation and demoralize. Independent opinion cannot express itself comfortably in environments where such angry globalists are around. When they are forced, they use methods such as threats, blackmail, insult and jackboot. These angry globalists are perpetrating this persecution against independent researchers here, with the support and close protection of the management. Being exposed to member and management violence is not unique to this website. The situation outside is not much different from here.

Independent people who are curious about the subject like you should take advantage of every resource you can find on this subject. But if you continue your research, this attitude will be like a slap in response to this brutal tyranny. Do yourself a favor today and watch videos from flat earth amateur astronomers youtubers.

Thanks in advance.

I think a lot of people who have heard of this see that it could be true and probably consider it something to look into at some point, and just leave it at that. It really is most likely a step in a different direction for most, even if you are into hidden truth type stuff. At least that was kindof what it was like for me. Also you see that if it is true it is obviously in the least a hotly contentious issue (perhaps with the impression of being associated with religious fanatics) as so many of the hugely wealthy businesses; banks, media, even schools seem to oppose it, or at least use globe symbolism And of course the nasa pictures, what would you even say to that. I think depending on your view of the world, that its relevance can be questionable. But i would think, as was mentioned, a lot of people probably dont make known their belief on the matter.

I also think that it is possibly beyond the scope of normal enquiry to confirm beyond the shadow of a doubt that the earth is flat. Though i have no doubt that the curve doesnt (...?usually?) or perhaps only seldomly under the right conditions blocks our view at long distances as predicted by globe model. I think it possibly looks round or spherical from orbit, but have also seen evidence from a book 20 yrs ago that NASA faked photos.... My own experience with trying to find info online is that it is being covered up. People have been talking about such "conspiracy" stuff for a long time, and though i think it is very important to tell the truth, scientists maybe just do their job professionally and leave it at that....? Not sure.

Some independent scientists are flat earthers too.

Why "Some"? If a scientist is independent, and if the earth is flat, "Many" of them should believe this.

Quote from: Wolvaccine on January 17, 2023, 01:00:59 PM

Some independent scientists are flat earthers too.

Why "Some"? If a scientist is independent, and if the earth is flat, "Many" of them should believe this.

The argument typically goes to objections with how science is taught - that people are taught the what before the why, and graded on repeating 'the party line' as it were. So anyone who becomes a scientist does so by memorising the norm.

There's a grain of truth to the argument, to be fair - if you were an amateur astronomer who saw something that didn't line up, would you assume that you did it wrong, or that the Earth was flat? Most people would probably lean the former.

Quote from: RezaHoss on January 18, 2023, 04:26:50 AM

Quote from: Wolvaccine on January 17, 2023, 01:00:59 PM

Some independent scientists are flat earthers too.

Why "Some"? If a scientist is independent, and if the earth is flat, "Many" of them should believe this.

There's a grain of truth to the argument, to be fair - if you were an amateur astronomer who saw something that didn't line up, would you assume that you did it wrong, or that the Earth was flat? Most people would probably lean the former.

This is an interesting sentence! That is true.

Quote from: RezaHoss on January 17, 2023, 06:14:05 AM

There are many independent scientists and astronommers who are'nt working for big organs like NASA or any government entity. There are amateur astronommers who observe sky by their owns. If the earth is flat, why do not they understand this fact?

Thanks in advance.

And thank you too!

Why?

Why?

Because you spent your time for asnwering my question.

Because they aren't truly "independent" scientists?

Let's review. Alot of astronomers work in grants or are students learning to be astronomers. They say that the bulk of new stars discovered are actually discovered by students and independent researchers. While this is because the current researchers are very busy with papers, something else is at work here.

If you go into a gambling casino, and win the very first time you play, chances are you will stick around and play until you keep losing. Now you'll just decide your luck "ran out" for awhile, and you come back to bet again. The house lets you win, so you'll keep coming back.

In both paleontology and astronomy (*cough* astrology, for how fake it is *cough**cough*), we seem to have this phenomenon of junior and independent types being allowed to find big finds (in order to buy their dependence). Someone knows they are going to dig a certain place... Wow! You found this intact set of bones and not at all animal bones treated with some substance to fraud carbon dating and mixed with marine animal heads fused together to look like a lizard mouth. You as a junior dcientist are too young to question this good fortune, the senior scientist gets more reputation for helping with this big haul, and by the time you realize these bones can be faked, the money is rolling in, and now you have to decide to either expose the fraud (in which case you are discredited, and money stops abruptly) or cooperate with it. How many cooperate? Moot, because the ones that don't pick another line of work.



(These were found when asking "biggest cattle bones" btw)

Why? Why would they do this? Well the answers on eBay. Eggs and bones sell for alot, particularly between museums.



Likewise, astronomers get grants for discovering stars.

The grant system make sure there are NO independent researchers. Question astronomy enough? If you weren't outright defunded, you nonetheless have no reason to be in astronomy. After all, if these aren't really stars you're looking at, what other explanation is there? Angels?

You see yet why "independent researchers" 100% support globe? Because flat Earth model puts these sorry mooches out of business!

Interesting fantasy, if there was a shred of evidence presumably you would have cited it.

Quote from: Wolvaccine on January 17, 2023, 01:00:59 PM

Some independent scientists are flat earthers too.

Why "Some"? If a scientist is independent, and if the earth is flat, "Many" of them should believe this.

You generalised in your argument saying saying 'independent scientists are globers'. That is saying all of them are

I simply said how this is not the case. Some scientists or astronomers through their own research have come to a different conclusion. Whether you agree with them or not is up to you.

I mean, it's why the argument or the existence of the flat earth debate even exists

The grant system make sure there are NO independent researchers.

No, it doesn't. As some are just doing it for a hobby, not being funded by any large organisations.
What motive do they have?

And as for those with grants, don't you think providing documented evidence to overturn a well established scientific theory would be great for them?
It would likely get them a Nobel prize and grant funding for the rest of their lives.

Interesting fantasy, if there was a shred of evidence presumably you would have cited it.

Sure thing.

Once you tell me the shred of evidence you're got for abiogenesis, cosmological evolution, and all the other fine myths you know to be "true."

Making life in a lab has never been done because even a single cell of life looks like this:

Of course a random soup of proteins just happens to combine in just the right way to create cytoplasm, a nucleus with DNA, a mitochondria, an endoplasmic reticulum, lysosome, and Golgi apparatus. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation. While we're at it, a forest that has rubber trees and underground metal ores will spontaneously spit out a brand new Ford Explorer.

But yes, I need to cite sources because it is soooooo difficult to back up my opinion (which you have never seen happen in practice).

That's a Stone Monkey argument. In Journey to the West, the natural elements of a mountain merge and create a monkey out of a boulder. There is a reason that this story is in the fantasy section.

Suppose scientists did manage to create life in a lab, wouldn't that disprove

We don't know what stars are by looking at them.
We definitely don't know that the sun or moon have two sides if we can only see one.
We definitely don't know that dinosaur bones from scientists who have a conflict of interest (because they sell such bones) are legit.
We listen to scientists babble on and on about how they know the answers.

https://www.intercaetera.com/posts/the-cult-of-science

Who, Dear Reader, do you see when I ask you to think of a "simple medieval man"?

Do you see a farmer peasant, who without a word of complaint toils every day in the field, who has been told that one day he has to work in the field of his master? Do you see an infantryman, running into battle with a pike on orders from his lord, ready to die in a minor feudal dispute, expecting his reward to come in the afterlife? Do you see a burgher merchant, travelling in rain with a couple barrels of Bavarian beer to the Imperial Court in Prague, expecting a generous payment?

Perhaps you see one of these, or a similar image. Now, you ask me: what do I see when you ask me to think of a "simple contemporary man"?

I don't think of anyone in particular when I think of a simple contemporary man. But there is one quality, that, in my view, all simple men have these days, and I think it's contemptible.

They all seem to love science.

The first time I encountered the cult of science must have been in the early 2010s, the beautiful time when Facebook was just getting popular in my circle of friends. Nobody, really, used the internet much except the biggest nerds (including yours truly) and kids still went out to play football outside every now and again (also including yours truly, even though the 2020 me finds this hard to believe).

As an aside, they don't do that anymore. There were three improvised football pitches outside of my building. Two have been since turned into a car park, the third grew over with tall grass and eventually the goals were removed.

That's when the modern popular science boom started (or at least that was when I was getting conscious enough to notice it). NASA started putting up pictures of distant stars and galaxies for everyone to see. New breakthroughs in medicine and genetics heralded that the defeat of cancer and obesity were just around the corner. Interesting insights into human behaviour were uncovered and available to everyone with internet. And pop-sci pages aggregated all the most interesting things and ensured that you were always, every day, fed new scientific breakthroughs in real time. The future is now. It's happening. You no longer have to pay money for obscure magazines or books, it's interspersed between your friends' drunk party pictures. And you're the first to know, because you really love science.

Of course, we know now, this is all fake. Space is cold and dark and there's nothing there, and the NASA photos are all touched up, coloured, photoshopped, artificial. Cancer still kills you, and from sitting all day scrolling through the Facebook feeds filled with science you got a bad back and arthritis and no amount of pills help. You can't use game theory to predict human behaviour, and you ruined your relationships when you tried to use it. And for some reason, all the pop-sci pages turned political when they realised that people no longer find them that interesting.

What went wrong?

This is, of course, nothing new.

Like many terrible things, it started with the terribly named "Enlightenment". There were rationalists before then, of course, but that was (to my best knowledge) the first time reason tried to be applied to the public. The Enlightened did not need God, because with reason and science everything was solved. Everything was illuminated, for we have discovered the Book of the Universe, and we understood its language and characters. The Book of the Universe was "written in mathematical language, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures ... without which one is wandering in a dark labyrinth."

As we know from history, this is all fake. Look around. Numbers are fake. They don't exist. Likewise, the geometric figures. In nature, does anything have the shape of a perfect circle, or square? And yet, the Enlightened had over 2,500 people guillotined in Paris alone. We saw what turning the society into a scientific experiment brought. And the French needed a truly exceptional man to, at least temporarily, knock these ideas out of their heads and institute a sane system of government at least for a bit.

(That man's name was Napoleon)

In the twentieth century, we forgot our lesson once again. In the twentieth century, God was dead. God was dead, we killed him, and there was not enough water in the universe to wash down the rivers of blood. But the cult of science attacked with even stronger force. They proliferated their ideas in society, creating centrally planned economies. They reasoned that there was no reason for men to not be rational, therefore they could predict the future just by applying numbers to a model. Their scientific experiments on the public caused millions to starve, and further thousands to die for criticising them.

Of course, the twentieth century science brought us fantastic inventions. We have telephones, aeroplanes, vaccines, crystal meth. But at what cost? Does it comfort you, Dear Reader, that the price for your Internet is an everlasting threat of complete nuclear destruction at the push of a button?

I hear the simple man's scream: but religious wars killed so many people! Religion is the true source of evil in the world! We ought to get rid of the churches of the world, so that all may finally live in peace under the guidance of science!

Isn't it science and technology which gave us, overgrown monkeys with opposable thumbs, the ability to potentially wipe out millions in seconds?

Science doesn't know the answers. But it spends literally billions bribing "independent" scientists in order to make them support the latest pop theory.

We definitely don't know that the sun or moon have two sides if we can only see one.

Yeah, we do...

Once you tell me the shred of evidence you're got for abiogenesis, cosmological evolution, and all the other fine myths you know to be "true."

So because you can't defend your flat Earth fantasy, you just try and change topic, going strait to pure BS?
Pure BS which dishonestly pretends the simplest cells have a nucleolus and mitochondria, requiring them to ignore currently living bacteria, and more primitive possible life?

We don't know what stars are by looking at them.
We definitely don't know that the sun or moon have two sides if we can only see one.

We know what stars are composed of (at least on the outside) due to spectroscopy. We know that they must have an energy source of some form inside due to all the energy they are emitting. For the sun specifically, we can take images of it, and observe it appearing to rotate.
We know that the moon is more than just a disc, we know it is 3D from observations of it from Earth, which you just dismiss as fake.
But we also have images of the other side, and an understanding of what gravity (which is also supported by mountains of evidence) would do to it.

It isn't simply that you lack evidence for your nonsense, it is that there are mountains of evidence that show you are wrong as well.

Your wilful ignorance has no impact on what other people know.
You wanting to reject reality and dismiss all the evidence that shows you are wrong as fake has no impact on reality.

bulmabreifs144 = Timeisup

Pay no mind to the troll

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on January 18, 2023, 06:48:18 AM

Interesting fantasy, if there was a shred of evidence presumably you would have cited it.

We don't know what stars are by looking at them.

As JackBlack sayed, how about spectroscopy? What does flat earth say about it?

Quote

We don't know what stars are by looking at them.

As JackBlack sayed, how about spectroscopy? What does flat earth say about it?

Spectroscopy is one of those fields that can be overstated by people not thinking about it - Jack gave the correct description mind you, albeit perhaps in a touch aggressive a manner, but it's worth clarifying. When light passes through a gas, some wavelengths are absorbed, different wavelengths for each gas.
Calculating what composes the Sun from that alone though is actually impossible - the results depends on the surrounding model. The simplest issue is redshift - the wavelengths of the light that reach the Earth are shifted slightly, predictably, from their true values. In a FE model that lacks redshift, we'd get different absorbed wavelengths than we do under RET.
The other tricky part is the composition of the Sun - when Jack says "We know what stars are composed of (at least on the outside)" it's because, as mentioned, light passing through gas is absorbed. If the FE Sun is a solid, luminescent object, we're still primarily measuring the gas that the light passes through between it and us. Most of what we can conclude is just 'this gas exists between the Sun and us.'

Perhaps it is the case that losing redshift - in many, though not necessarily all, models - makes the elements not line up with anything, I'm not sure but that could be a fun road to go down. But if that's not the case, it would only give us the compsition of the Sun if the Sun was gaseous. Otherwise, it only gives us the outermost layer of the Sun's composition. You've got to go through all those steps and assumptions to draw a solid conclusion about composition.
Bulma mentioned abiogenesis, and honestly that's an apt analogy - it isn't that we think it's impossible, it's that there are so many potential explanations for each step that we don't know which way it happened. FE models of the Sun with respects to spectroscopy are similar.

Quote

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on January 18, 2023, 06:48:18 AM

Interesting fantasy, if there was a shred of evidence presumably you would have cited it.

We don't know what stars are by looking at them.

As JackBlack sayed, how about spectroscopy? What does flat earth say about it?

So?

I proposed they were lifeforms. Energy-based lifeforms. The word I used was angels. If so, angels were already named by theologians, and any motion by them need not follow laws of physics (supernatural beings composed of sentient nuclear fusion). A spectroscope might tell you that Polaris's iron was solar, the carbon was deficient, and nitrogen was overabundant.

Right, we "know" the composition of the star Polaris.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/131773

Only maybe we got the star Polaris's name wrong and it was Aharnishiel, angel of the North.
https://www.wearehumanangels.org/angels-of-the-cardinal-point/

See, that's the problem. You have knowledge but no way of proving you know what you know. "We know it because of measurements of this machine." But you can't know if that machine is telling you correct information. Or it might be correct but irrelevant. When we measure the details of stars we don't bother to sing "How I wonder what you are..."

we declare we know, and at the height of human hubris, we don't actually know any of this without question.

Even more foolish than me declaring they could be angels (What? We haven't disproven that) is you telling us that you know, because a spectroscope told you, when you've maybe shown chemical composition not the nature of things. You've told me what individual stars are made of. But neither of us knows what they are.

Balls of gases in fusion? So along with life in the laboratory, another never made is a stable fusion reaction.

At the center of our solar system is an enormous nuclear generator. The Earth revolves around this massive body at an average distance of 93 million miles (149.6 million kilometers). It's a star we call the sun. The sun provides us with the energy necessary for life. But could scientists create a miniaturized version here on Earth?

It's not just possible -- it's already been done. If you think of a star as a nuclear fusion machine, mankind has duplicated the nature of stars on Earth. But this revelation has qualifiers. The examples of fusion here on Earth are on a small scale and last for just a few seconds at most.

The way you people like to skim quotes, you probably read "it's already been done" and stop. But the key here is "small scale and last for just a few seconds at most". Were scientists to succeed, it would be the last in a long line of disasters made because scientists have no moral compass. The last because it would destroy the world having a second sun very close to the ground.
 But the point here is it's not a stable ball of fusion gas. Such a thing is held together by design, neither collapsing nor exploding.

The other tricky part is the composition of the Sun - when Jack says "We know what stars are composed of (at least on the outside)" it's because, as mentioned, light passing through gas is absorbed. If the FE Sun is a solid, luminescent object, we're still primarily measuring the gas that the light passes through between it and us. Most of what we can conclude is just 'this gas exists between the Sun and us.'

Is there enough redshift from the rotation of the sun to measure?

See, that's the problem. You have knowledge but no way of proving you know what you know. "We know it because of measurements of this machine." But you can't know if that machine is telling you correct information. Or it might be correct but irrelevant. When we measure the details of stars we don't bother to sing "How I wonder what you are..."

If you really want to go down this path, it means you literally cannot know anything at all.
That means you cannot know that Earth is flat, you cannot even know if Earth exists, or if you exist.

Most people do not operate with that meaning of the word "know", because it makes it entirely useless.

Even more foolish than me declaring they could be angels (What? We haven't disproven that) is you telling us that you know, because a spectroscope told you, when you've maybe shown chemical composition not the nature of things. You've told me what individual stars are made of. But neither of us knows what they are.

No, you claiming they could be angels, with absolutely nothing to support it, is far more foolish than the everyday use of the word know.

Again, one idea is supported by plentiful evidence and a coherent model.
The other is just wilful rejection to try and prop up an incoherent delusional fantasy.

The way you people like to skim quotes, you probably read "it's already been done" and stop. But the key here is "small scale and last for just a few seconds at most". Were scientists to succeed, it would be the last in a long line of disasters made because scientists have no moral compass. The last because it would destroy the world having a second sun very close to the ground.
 But the point here is it's not a stable ball of fusion gas. Such a thing is held together by design, neither collapsing nor exploding.

The one dishonestly misrepresenting things here is you.
These experiments demonstrate what is required for fusion.
We know the requirements, and know that it will be quite difficult to create on Earth.
But we also understand that stars can provide those requirements, and even use that to put bounds on the requirements for something to be a star.

There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the sun is held together by design.
Instead, it is held together by equilibrium.
Gravity is what caused to start fusing. This increases the pressure, pushing outwards, to stop it collapsing.
If the pressure is too little, then it collapses more, causing fusion to occur at a faster rate, and the pressure increasing, pushing it outwards more.
If the pressure is too great, then it expands, causing fusion to occur at a slower rate.
This process continues until an equilibrium is reached.

There is no need for any magical design in the sun.
We only need to carefully design fusion reactors on Earth, because we don't have the requirements for a star.

Again, we have a coherent model, backed by mountains of evidence. You have "WE DON"T KNOW ANYTHIGN! IT COULD BE MAGIC!!!"

Quote from: Slime on January 19, 2023, 03:37:03 AM

The other tricky part is the composition of the Sun - when Jack says "We know what stars are composed of (at least on the outside)" it's because, as mentioned, light passing through gas is absorbed. If the FE Sun is a solid, luminescent object, we're still primarily measuring the gas that the light passes through between it and us. Most of what we can conclude is just 'this gas exists between the Sun and us.'

Is there enough redshift from the rotation of the sun to measure?

I know the Pound-Rebka experiment was able to observe it occurring with respect to the Earth (at least with respect to gravitational redshift), so it definitely ought to be measurable - though that experiment was with gamma radiation, so it might be less pronounced on visible wavelengths.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 19, 2023, 01:31:18 PM

Quote from: Slime on January 19, 2023, 03:37:03 AM

The other tricky part is the composition of the Sun - when Jack says "We know what stars are composed of (at least on the outside)" it's because, as mentioned, light passing through gas is absorbed. If the FE Sun is a solid, luminescent object, we're still primarily measuring the gas that the light passes through between it and us. Most of what we can conclude is just 'this gas exists between the Sun and us.'

Is there enough redshift from the rotation of the sun to measure?

I know the Pound-Rebka experiment was able to observe it occurring with respect to the Earth (at least with respect to gravitational redshift), so it definitely ought to be measurable - though that experiment was with gamma radiation, so it might be less pronounced on visible wavelengths.

MATH TIME :

With the sun's equatorial velocity of 1997 m/s, and a speed of light of 2.998e8 m/s, the redshift factor z should be ~6.66E-06.
For red light with a wavelength of ~700 nm, the redshift for the wavelength would be 0.005 nm.
Or going from one side of the sun to the other, that should be a difference of 0.01 nm.
So I think it should just be possible.

Quote from: Slime on January 19, 2023, 03:37:03 AM

The other tricky part is the composition of the Sun - when Jack says "We know what stars are composed of (at least on the outside)" it's because, as mentioned, light passing through gas is absorbed. If the FE Sun is a solid, luminescent object, we're still primarily measuring the gas that the light passes through between it and us. Most of what we can conclude is just 'this gas exists between the Sun and us.'

Is there enough redshift from the rotation of the sun to measure?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 19, 2023, 06:27:43 AM

See, that's the problem. You have knowledge but no way of proving you know what you know. "We know it because of measurements of this machine." But you can't know if that machine is telling you correct information. Or it might be correct but irrelevant. When we measure the details of stars we don't bother to sing "How I wonder what you are..."

If you really want to go down this path, it means you literally cannot know anything at all.
That means you cannot know that Earth is flat, you cannot even know if Earth exists, or if you exist.

So what?

But let's loosen that up a bit and say that while we cannot "know" anything, we can "suspect" things that we have personally encountered. Provide it doesn't look like we have been punked, we can then then test such things until we are "pretty sure."

This is a better definition than "knowing" what we have read from science journals. In the other thread, the lady talked about how "publish or perish" means that many of these are not reproducible, if not outright fraud. You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

Real science is about testing and theorizing, not about "knowing". We know things only after we have tested them, and are sure what we tested is right.


Most people do not operate with that meaning of the word "know", because it makes it entirely useless.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 19, 2023, 06:27:43 AM

Even more foolish than me declaring they could be angels (What? We haven't disproven that) is you telling us that you know, because a spectroscope told you, when you've maybe shown chemical composition not the nature of things. You've told me what individual stars are made of. But neither of us knows what they are.

No, you claiming they could be angels, with absolutely nothing to support it, is far more foolish than the everyday use of the word know.

Says you.

"Could be" is an extremely weasel word. There could be UFOs at some of the Area 51 or was it 52? The word "could" entails something is possible, not that it is likely.


Again, one idea is supported by plentiful evidence and a coherent model.
The other is just wilful rejection to try and prop up an incoherent delusional fantasy.

That you're a sucker who believes thirdhand evidence and rejects the evidence of his or her own eyes is of no consequence to me as we move out of hard science into theory.

We don't know anything. It could be magic. 

Okay, here. Here's something I do know. Most people work for a living. Given the choice of saying something unpopular and risking their job, and going along with what everyone wants to hear, they're likely to try to stay employed.

This in turn means that if you will get fired for being "unscientific" even though you spend months of your life proving the Earth is flat through various tests and do good models (with controls and everything), while the peer review system favors the consensus even when the consensus uses fake pictures from NASA and models that fall apart under scrutiny, "peer review" (scoff, peer pressure tbh) means that the consensus will remain except for people who have funding from independent sources.

When your title as a scientist can be taken away, and you can be bullied into a corner for telling people that the Earth is flat or dinosaurs don't exist or faerie and angels do, this is where science isn't science anymore. If you somehow arrange an experiment with controls that proves that a faerie exists using cold iron near certain plants (and they don't grow as well because the faeries avoid them, and definitely not because of iron oxides in the soil  ), okay.... maybe a more plausible experiment than that, but the point is, your results should be published, even if you are crazy. Because of enforced consensus, real discovery is slowing. We need to reform funding of science, so it is free of bias. They can reject the crazy parts and say "While Aaron Fitzgruber Mesonautica believes iron wards off faeries, his experiment shows that iron reacts with the soil in a way that stunts plant growth."

(Actually, iron is healthy for plants, this is just example)

And that is why science is broken, and we can't know anything. Because if results get buried because the one giving them is crazy, pretty soon we have an orthodoxy. Only the "right" beliefs are allowed to be shared. Dude, as someone part of religion, I know all about orthodoxy.

As a side note.



Yeah, reality isn't real.

There are many independent scientists and astronommers who are'nt working for big organs like NASA or any government entity. There are amateur astronommers who observe sky by their owns. If the earth is flat, why do not they understand this fact?

It might surprise you that there are scientists that work for NASA that are privately members of our society. The idea that science says any one thing is a silly one that is meant to bolster science as a centre of power in capitalist societies.

You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

You've never gained any knowledge from a book?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2023, 06:30:36 AM

You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

You've never gained any knowledge from a book?

Don't let Timmie hear this.

Quote from: Stash on January 20, 2023, 12:00:51 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2023, 06:30:36 AM

You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.

You've never gained any knowledge from a book?

Don't let Timmie hear this.

Maybe Shifter is right. Bumble is really Timmie and this has been a super long-con ruse to get us to admit that all knowledge can only come from experts.

Quote from: RezaHoss on January 17, 2023, 06:14:05 AM

There are many independent scientists and astronommers who are'nt working for big organs like NASA or any government entity. There are amateur astronommers who observe sky by their owns. If the earth is flat, why do not they understand this fact?

It might surprise you that there are scientists that work for NASA that are privately members of our society. The idea that science says any one thing is a silly one that is meant to bolster science as a centre of power in capitalist societies.

To be a member does not mean that thy are in agreement with the flatness of earth.
As I am a member and the earth is a global.
There is nothing that you can say, that will change my understanding of earth.