Thanks for the response and the above opinion. Being in active research, my experiences do not match at all the above, so I'm obviously (and I hope you would say understandably) going to take my own physical reality as a framework and use that to come to a drastically differing opinion. Thanks for sharing though, I think it is important to realize how people outside of science and science training see the institutions as closed and controlled.
I don't know what you do and what you physically derive from your job and how you equate it to the basic so called building blocks that make up your experiments.
Maybe you can enlighten me so we know what we are up against in terms of acceptance and doing without full realisation or whether physical proof is right there in front of your face as to the reality of what and how you do what you do.
Or is it top secret like many on here?
I am hopeful the current move toward Open Science is at least a step in the right direction to allow people to rethink this perception.
Science has always been open to everyone. the major issue that is argued, is about pseudo-science that is fully closed off, physically to everyone except those who are in the " need to know" category, kind of thing.
Sure, you think I believe in silly things and vice versa. I have no problem with that, people believe in all sorts of things that I believe are silly, and thankfully it doesn't stop me from talking to them or trying to relate.
Yep we can all be duped. We can all be made to believe in all kinds of things that may not be what they are when allowed the opportunity to deeply think about then without the presence of peer pressure to scupper it.
The difference here is that I am not trying to get you to accept the Mars rover, or Newtonian Mechanics, or a gravity driven heliocentric model of the solar system. You are completely free to picture the world as you want, it can be controlled by unseen deities, a living planetary system to worship, or even a domed cell warmed by a giant crystal somewhere up at the North pole, possibly at Santa’s workshop – it doesn't matter, I have no interest in changing your mind to the conceptual models I use to think about the world around me.
You may not be getting me to accept anything but you're here for a purpose.
If that purpose is to legitimately enhance your perception of life and not to push a narrative then good luck to you.
But just remember one thing. You accept a lot of stuff based on evidence that was handed to you and accepted by you as being just that, because you observe what you've been told to observe with reasons for it.
You will argue that you do so because it has all of the mathematics/equations to back it up...and yet you fail to see why those mathematical equations can't be simply made up to just fit.
But you have been doing this for years, and it seems like you are trying to get people to understand and agree with your conceptual model. Am I wrong?
Getting people to understand how atmospheric pressure is the reality instead of gravity....yes.
the rest of my model is my own taking and my own long term thought which people are more than welcome to piece together or not, whether it makes sense to them, or not.
I argue denpressure as a simple case of any dense mass displacing atmospheric pressure will be pushed down as it resists that push above it which will determine how much mass it has by using a compressible scale plate and measurement to create a reading.
This not only destroys gravity, it destroys the globe and space and everything else that uses the silly fictional force that cannot be explained.
It cannot be explained as to what it is because to explain it would be to give the game away.
Yet people like yourself adhere to it because of a few absolutely obscure supposed tests and yet even though nobody can explain this force...it is a force and equations for this fictional force are used based on a supposed vacuum fall of 9.8m/s/s fall.
And yet when it's argued that not all objects fall at 9.8m/s after someone drops a ball in atmosphere in some strange attempt to prove it does...we then get told that 2 ohhhh, yes, because that particular object encounters ATMOSPHERIC resistance.
I could go on but you get my drift.
If you genuinely dont care whether people put your model onto the fact or fiction shelf, why are you here?
Because I have opinions on a lot of stuff, including my theory of Earth.
It's a good forum to use your mind without being censored by those who don't necessarily agree with opinions.
Are you just trolling for the interactions, are you trying to just convince yourself, are you bored?
Trolling gets used a lot. What is trolling? Are we all trolling?
Am I trying to convince myself?...Yes, in a way. I'm nibbling away at all kinds of theories to see what makes sense, including my own.
I eventually want to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubts as to a potential Earth set up and shape.
I believe I'm on the right lines.
I'll tell you what I used to be convinced of when at school, 100%. A globe that was spinning with a big 93 million mile sun that its light took 8 minutes to reach us and all that absolute utter hogwash.
Do you know how much I believe in that model as I've got older and had the chance to question it?
ZERO. Not even a smidgeon of a percent. Now that's got to be a major issue with it if I can go from one extreme to another after looking at it all and doing simple experiments...right?
What is your motivation for doing this year after year after year if it is not to get people to reevaluate what things they have put on the fact or fiction shelf, and to take a good look at your own model in this process?
My motivation is not to allow globalists to ever change my mind and to also interact with people who have the ability to think outside of the box.
It's also to give people a voice. Give people a chance to stand fast against globalists who are hell bent on ensuring people do not get the opportunity to think for themselves.
I'm saying to those people " come in and exercise your mind. If you're not here to ridicule then you must be here to learn something different to your earlier indoctrinated belief's."
Okay, I am trying to do this. I am putting aside physical reality and focusing on your conceptual model. What are its foundational principles? What logically follows from it? I am trying to understand it well enough so eventually I can make predictions from it to compare with physical reality without needing you as a layer of interpretation. I don't know whether this is possible yet, whether you have a clear enough idea about this concept to get me there, but I am trying, and I hope you will continue to as well.
I'll leave it entirely up to you what you want to take from anything I say.
You have the right to think what you want.
I'll try and explain but I'll do it my way.
If my way of explaining does not help you and you can't think of a way to get me to explain better, then I can't do anything else on that matter and you'll have to take away anything or nothing from me.
You won't be the first nor the last.
I know some people have taken a lot of things from what I've said.
They understand what I've said even if they do not necessarily agree with it.
How many grasp it against the masses that don't, is down to the individual and their ability to want to think on my lines.
I never said it would be easy , I just said it was simple for me.
I am doing this because I like trying to think about the world in different ways, using different frameworks to challenge my thinking. But you should know that at the end of the day I still watch the sunset drop behind the horizon, and unless you can at explain simple, everyday phenomena like this, no one is going to find the path to the truth you think is out there.
All you can do is explore everything, even the stuff you once thought was ridiculous.
The mere mention of a flat Earth for instance will get people running for cover or bring out the immediate screams of "loony"...
The problem is, many that do this have no clue why they're doing it except to understand that it's the in thing to do because of exposure to it by mainstream media and what they term it as being.
If a person looks at it in that way then exploring stuff is not high on their agenda...right?
One more note, Sceptimatic. I have a suggestion, my assumption is you will ignore it or say it is worthless, but I feel it would be remiss to not tell you -
Learn mathematics
It is possible. It might not be easy, but it is worth the effort. Every time you talk about “silly equations” that “no one understands”, you peg yourself as completely ignorant about some of the most basic tools of science. Arguing from a place of ignorance says a lot about people, and I agree with your criticism of people who bash your conceptual model without at least taking the time to understand it. The truth is a lot of people understand these equations, even if you dont. We understand them fully, and these equations are a wonderful tool to unambiguously describe relationships in the physical world.
Learn mathematics Sceptimatic, if only to argue from a place of understanding instead of ignorance.
Learning mathematics is fine. It just depends on what mathematics are being learnt and what for.
If the maths have a practical use that work then they're worth using. I have no issues with it.
If I want to build something I will use what is necessary to accurately do that, using whatever maths is required.
Do I need it for arguing my points?
I don't think I do. It's a thinking process first and an understanding by those that are capable of doing so.
From there it only takes a minimum effort of mathematics to see a bigger picture.
If you're a mathematical genius then great. Let me tell you something.
Inventions are not thought up based on mathematics, initially.
Only after you commit it to paper and then build it do you need to go down that avenue.
Which I obviously know.
However, it has to be real and a lot of equations bandied about in the so called science world are made up nonsense designed to never be solved because they're unsolvable due to them depicting nothing.
E=MC
2 is a prime example.