is there ANYONE willing to present ANY evidence of a flat earth??

You always feel acceleration. Take for instance Einstein's equivalence principle. According to you, the person in an elevator would feel weightlessness as it accelerates upwards. Anybody who has ever been on a lift can easily debunk this! Simply looking at the diagrams shows why this is the case as well.

Even if you are being affected along with everything else you'd still feel the acceleration. For example, we are all affected by gravity as is everything within our "enclosure" and yet everything still feels that constant pull downwards.

Everything accelerating does not mean nothing is accelerating as you wish to claim. Everything traveling at a constant speed together does mean you won't feel it - this always reminds me of the "Alice" and "Bob" thought experiment that is so often in pop-science books. Likewise you can also notice changes in acceleration, or jerk.

What you are likely trying to argue is along the lines of Galileo's second (? maybe third ?) dialogue on the Tower of Pisa. He claims the earth can be rotating and you still have both balls drop at the same location. How does he argue this? He claims it is because the momentum is supposedly conserved from the tower which is also traveling at a supposedly constant speed. Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that angular momentum is not conserved, and a spinning earth is accelerating.

His point here though is to try to force the issue by creating a paradigm shift between two ways of looking at the situation. This is one of the many infamous mistakes in his worldview, still propagated today by the hungry for 'facts' globularist.

A stronger argument would be that its too slight to notice. When you review the calculations, this is also not the case.

Here is an article describing what you are suggesting. However its completely wrong:
http://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-we-don-t-feel-earth-s-rotation-according-to-science

This is another example of globularist myth masquerading as a "Science Alert!" You don't feel the acceleration when inside a plane because its not accelerating - until that fasten seatbelt sign goes on because its changing direction and speed. Then the ride gets bumpy. You can tell the author of the article had similar issues as you do differentiating between speed, velocity, and acceleration.

Another attempt at a correct answer is wrong - supposedly centrifugal force is normal to the surface of the earth everywhere so it is aligned with gravity! This is well and good until one realizes centrifugal forces are perpendicular to the axis - not the surface.

Centripetal acceleration is v^2/r=(460*460)/6,371,000=0.0332. You claim this can be noticed. Adding the vector with gravity gives a direction of 0.2 degrees from straight down, again do you really think you could notice this.

You don't think we'd notice 0.0332 m/s/s? Do you have any idea how large a meter is? My calculations were closer to 0.04 m/s/s, but either way...

Adding the vector with gravity gives a direction of 0.2 degrees from straight down? Where exactly are you adding this vector? What vector are you adding? You don't seem to have done any vector math at all.

However, lets ignore all this and accept your value - would we notice 0.0332 m/s/s or to put it another way, 33.2 mm/s/s? This source seems to state we would, putting the threshold over 16mm moved to ~10 mm/s/s ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402298/ ) Given the north pole of axis would feel this at a line tangent to the surface and thus normal to the gravity vector, we'd there feel the entire 33.2 mm/s/s pulling at us in every horizontal direction - which is simply not the case.

You don't think we'd notice 0.0332 m/s/s? Do you have any idea how large a meter is? My calculations were closer to 0.04 m/s/s, but either way...

Adding the vector with gravity gives a direction of 0.2 degrees from straight down? Where exactly are you adding this vector? What vector are you adding? You don't seem to have done any vector math at all.

However, lets ignore all this and accept your value - would we notice 0.0332 m/s/s or to put it another way, 33.2 mm/s/s? This source seems to state we would, putting the threshold over 16mm moved to ~10 mm/s/s ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402298/ ) Given the north pole of axis would feel this at a line tangent to the surface and thus normal to the gravity vector, we'd there feel the entire 33.2 mm/s/s pulling at us in every horizontal direction - which is simply not the case.

Hello mr Davis

First: Yes, I do have an idea how large a meter is. But feel free to elaborate me with your advanced knowledge.

0.033 m/s^2 are about 0.34% of the gravitational acceleration. I personally do not think, that you would notice this slight sidewards accleration since its not even momentary but continuous. A lot of people do not even notice small earthquakes except if you're not perfectly still, and when you do notice them you just notice it due to the inconsistant acceleration.

Additionally, the 0.033 m/s^2 are at the equator. This force decreases when moving away from the equator. At the northpole, where the force would be most noticable since the angle of attack is 90°, the force unfortunately has already decreased to 0!

Funny thing is: This "strong" sideway force wouldn't be noticeable like there was a string pulling it sideways. It would simply result in the force pulling you down beeing not actually directed to the earth's center but 0.23 degrees sideways. 0.23 only with the sideforce at the equator, but standing at the northpole; so in fact way lower in real life.

Tell me again: Will you notice an about 0.1 Degree tilted gravitational force? You might want to rethink your statement about "how much a meter is!" since you totally missed the point.

If you have any studies that proof you might notice such a slight sideway acceleration, feel free to show me.

By the way, I would really appreciate if you could answer to my really simple flat earth disprove
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67675.0


P.s. If you are not able to draw a triangle and use the tan^-1 to calculate the 0.23 angle, then i'm feeling sorry for you. You might also want to rethink your statement of who can and cannot do simple maths.

0.033 m/s^2 are about 0.34% of the gravitational acceleration. I personally do not think, that you would notice this slight sidewards accleration since its not even momentary but continuous. A lot of people do not even notice small earthquakes except if you're not perfectly still, and when you do notice them you just notice it due to the inconsistant acceleration.

Additionally, the 0.033 m/s^2 are at the equator. This force decreases when moving away from the equator. At the northpole, where the force would be most noticable since the angle of attack is 90°, the force unfortunately has already decreased to 0!

You can't feel something that you are used to througth the entire life.

Also, the 0.34% change of acceleration is ~250g change of weigth for an average person. So...

How much do you think your weigth fluctuate daily?

Do you feel so much heavier that when you dring a cup of water (~250g) you can clearly feel the difference?

Do you feel heavier when you lift a book?

Etc etc.

You don't think we'd notice 0.0332 m/s/s? Do you have any idea how large a meter is? My calculations were closer to 0.04 m/s/s, but either way...

Adding the vector with gravity gives a direction of 0.2 degrees from straight down? Where exactly are you adding this vector? What vector are you adding? You don't seem to have done any vector math at all.

However, lets ignore all this and accept your value - would we notice 0.0332 m/s/s or to put it another way, 33.2 mm/s/s? This source seems to state we would, putting the threshold over 16mm moved to ~10 mm/s/s ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402298/ ) Given the north pole of axis would feel this at a line tangent to the surface and thus normal to the gravity vector, we'd there feel the entire 33.2 mm/s/s pulling at us in every horizontal direction - which is simply not the case.

Our different values are likely due to using different values in the calculation.
The vector math. I was working out the net acceleration at the equator. 9.8 ms-2 down, 0.0332ms-2 to the side. The angle was just simple trigonometry, tan-1(0.0332/9.. The net acceleration still rounds to 9.8 so I didn't mention it.

Edit: Wait, I centripedial force is actually downwards not sideways isn't it, because an object moving in a circle had acceleration towards the center. So centrifugal force (it's "fake pair") will be upwards. So I calculated the angle wrong, it's just going to be straight downwards. Oops. Hey, I realised to not accept science blindly, this website does fulfill it's purpose.

On the equator this force would be parallel to the gravitational force. Moving towards the northpole, the force would start to change its angel to reach a full 90 degree at the pole itself. But due to radius = 0 at the north pole, the force is no more existant there.

Here is the equation for horizontal component of the centripetal force:

f_horizontal = w²*R*cos(lat)*sin(lat)

R = equatorial radius of earth = 6,370,000 m
w = angular velocity of earth = 2*pi/24/60/60 rad/s = 7.3x10^-5 rad/s
lat = latitude (angle measured from equator) = 0 to 90 degrees

It is 0 at the equator and poles. It reaches it's maximum value of 0.017 m/s² at 45 degrees latitude. All this would do is shift your perception of what direction is "up" by 0.1 degrees north or south. (arctan(0.017 / 9.8 ) = 0.1 degrees)

So no, it is silly to suggest that we would notice this.

John Davis and Ski, why didn't you bother doing this calculation before you touted it as evidence against a round earth? It seems like you were just hoping it would be evidence, but didn't bother to check.

Edit: spontaneous smileys! (0.017 / 9.

The earth spins really, really slowly (to humans at least)

1 revolution per day is slow.

The earth spins really, really slowly (to humans at least)

1 revolution per day is slow.

Well, that is relative.

If you turn a wheel with a radius of three feet 1 revolution per day and put it next to a wheel with a radius of 100 feet and turn that 1 revolution per day, the edge of the large wheel will move faster than the edge of the small wheel.

So the number of revolutions per unit of time don't say anything about the speed of the surface unless you know the radius.

A sufficiently large rotating sphere could revolve once per 24 Earth hours with the surface reaching the speed of light.

Purely hypothetically, of course.

The calculation of .03 m/s/s would be noticeable without equipment. I have cited why. This is at the equator.

At 0.017 m/s/s at 45 degrees latitude I have also cited why it would be noticeable.

At the poles it is not 0. You are assuming the observational equipment ( a person ) at the poles has NO BREADTH, HEIGHT OR WIDTH. Great, once you procure this magical massless and dimensionless person, let me know.

A sufficiently large rotating sphere could revolve once per 24 Earth hours with the surface reaching the speed of light.

Approaching the speed of light.

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2016, 03:16:59 AM

A sufficiently large rotating sphere could revolve once per 24 Earth hours with the surface reaching the speed of light.

Approaching the speed of light.

Ah yes, meant that.

At the poles it is not 0. You are assuming the observational equipment ( a person ) at the poles has NO BREADTH, HEIGHT OR WIDTH. Great, once you procure this magical massless and dimensionless person, let me know.

Since the radius is so low and the speed is just 1 turn/day it is negliable low. Mathematically speaking at the pole the force is 0 anyway. At an infintesimal thin line called "central axis".

The calculation of .03 m/s/s would be noticeable without equipment. I have cited why. This is at the equator.

It is not. Your weight fluctations much more throughout the day as that you could notice the 0.03m/s^2

The calculation of .03 m/s/s would be noticeable without equipment. I have cited why. This is at the equator.

At 0.017 m/s/s at 45 degrees latitude I have also cited why it would be noticeable.

I assume you are referring to this:

However, lets ignore all this and accept your value - would we notice 0.0332 m/s/s or to put it another way, 33.2 mm/s/s? This source seems to state we would, putting the threshold over 16mm moved to ~10 mm/s/s ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402298/ )

Notice the word perturbations in the study's title. It is testing short term acceleration. It is not suggesting that we can tell the difference between a permanent 9.80 m/s² and 9.77 m/s² acceleration. Keep in mind that you have been feeling this constant centrifugal force your entire life, and your body has absolutely no way to distinguish it from the force of gravity.

At the poles it is not 0. You are assuming the observational equipment ( a person ) at the poles has NO BREADTH, HEIGHT OR WIDTH. Great, once you procure this magical massless and dimensionless person, let me know.

Haha. Fair enough. Assuming you have a 30 cm radius at the North Pole, your body would be ripped apart by centrifugal forces imparting a catastrophic acceleration of 0.0000000016 m/s². Surely no mere mortal could survive such horrors!

How could anyone survive such strong tidal forces! Having an acceleration of 0N on your right side, and .00000002N on your left!

The calculation of .03 m/s/s would be noticeable without equipment. I have cited why. This is at the equator.

I made the same mistake, the force isn't sideways at the equator, it's straight up. You weight a glass of water ish less.

Anyone know the formula to calculate the force on a person from the air at a certain windspeed, it would be a good comparison to express the acceleration you get from centrifugal force by the amount of ms-1 of wind it takes.

Edit: Using this source http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/wea.29.02/pdf
I got the force from wind as 0.2448*v^2 for a person with surface area 0.68m2. I get 1. 5N sideways the equator for a person of 90kg, take to get an upperbound for the rest of the planet as 45 degrees has the highest sideways acceleration
2. 5ms-1 windspeed generates the same sideways force.
Another way of showing the size of the acceleration is that the coefficient of friction needed to keep something still under the acceleration is a/9.8=0.0017

The calculation of .03 m/s/s would be noticeable without equipment. I have cited why. This is at the equator.

At 0.017 m/s/s at 45 degrees latitude I have also cited why it would be noticeable.

At the poles it is not 0. You are assuming the observational equipment ( a person ) at the poles has NO BREADTH, HEIGHT OR WIDTH. Great, once you procure this magical massless and dimensionless person, let me know.

It would be noticeable if it wasn't acting entire time. The change in acceleration caused by rotation isn't a step function, but a continuous process, therefore it can't be noticed. And since the 0.03m/s^2 (or lower) acts on us from the day of our birth, we don't even know it is there.

As long as there is no teleportation device (moving from one place to another and instantly change the rate of acceleration), you can't test whether you could notice that change.

So after days of work, we realize that the follow earlier claims by globularists here on which they base their beliefs are not true:

We don't feel acceleration because the earth is 'enclosed.'
We don't feel acceleration because all of the earth is being accelerated.
Centrifugal force is normal to the surface of the earth.

When we are asked what evidence has led us to our conclusions, I hope you now realize the hypocrisy. Half of the answers given to my evidences originally were blatantly incorrect thus turning the tables - What legitimate evidence has led you to your beliefs in a globe?!


Tests have been down in the field of pyschology related to otolith function that seems to state otherwise with sustained accelerations to show the threshold is ~ 9cm/s/s +- 4 cm/s/s. These are for horizontal movements, but the point still holds. We can expect it to be slightly higher for vertical movements.  http://bmcearnosethroatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6815-5-5

We see the threshold found by Ter Braak in 1939 studying rabbits ocular deviations photographically to be  0-1 deg / s /s.  As rabbits, like us, align ourselves with gravity this supposed 0.1 deg difference, as previously claimed, would be noticeable in this study of photographing rabbits eyes. We align ourselves with gravity. So the 0.1^o would cause occular havok as well as havok on our otolith system. It would also affect things like our sense of how 'stable' objects are. Furthermore there are a wide range of biological processes that would be affected by this 0.1 'unnoticeable' change in angle. One affect is on the degradation and movements of microfeatures in biology such as cilia which have a wide range of consequences.

To the points at hand, Willhem Mulder in his 1908 PhD thesis shows us that the opposite of what you claim is true, and even today the Mulder product is widely cited. Simply stated, the threshold is reached quicker if the required acceleration is going to be higher. When we moved to the other area on earth our body would need time to adjust. This is also similar to the case of having on 'upside down' glasses and having your ocular input appear to be reversed after removing them.

We also get to talk about the supposed rotation about the sun next, and then in our galaxy! However, I'm willing to put this entire point aside and move on to another list. I'll post it soon as I have time.

Hello mr Davis

Your point, that the slight accleration should be noticeable, has been showed to be ridiculous multiple times in this thread. You might re-ready the whole thread if you missed the posts.

What legitimate evidence has led you to your beliefs in a globe?!

I do still wait for your answer:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67675.0

Tests have been down in the field of pyschology related to otolith function that seems to state otherwise with sustained accelerations to show the threshold is ~ 9cm/s/s +- 4 cm/s/s. These are for horizontal movements, but the point still holds. We can expect it to be slightly higher for vertical movements.  http://bmcearnosethroatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6815-5-5

You keep taking things out of context. In less than 10 sec after clicking your link I found

Whole body motion stimulus was generated by a motor driven linear sled at a stimulus frequency of 1 Hz at a linear acceleration ranging from 0 to maximum 40 cm/ s2

As you seem to be intelligent yourself, the fat parts should be self-explanatory.

We see the threshold found by Ter Braak in 1939 studying rabbits ocular deviations photographically to be  0-1 deg / s /s.  As rabbits, like us, align ourselves with gravity this supposed 0.1 deg difference, as previously claimed, (1)would be noticeable in this study of photographing rabbits eyes. We align ourselves with gravity. So the 0.1o would cause (2)occular havok as well as havok on our otolith system. It would also (3)affect things like our sense of how 'stable' objects are.

For all 3 points I can simply ask: Why?
I do not see how you may conclude those three points.

Anyway, I keep noticing your way of debating. I quote myself:
In my mothertongue there is a saying
"in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"

As far as I know, John Davis studied mathematics. He's using his knowledge to confuse his opponents and to avoid giving answers that other people can understand. Instead of using understandable, simple arguments he keeps coming up with mathematical terms (e.g. non euclidian space = not possible to draw more or less accurate map) or complex studys.

If mr. Davis would publish his flat earth theory in a scientific enviroment he knows that he'd get absolutly destroyed from his science comrades. So, instead of going there, he uses this forum to boost his ego and enjoys being the one eyed man.

I have absolutely no fear of peer review. As we know, nobody does because its a joke. You can literally generate nonsense mathematical papers with SciGen and get them published as has been done in the past. Taking any part in organized academia, as it is, fits the definition for what I consider a morally reprehensible activity. Why would I show my support and use of a system that almost always gives us the wrong answers, gets funded far more than they should for their activities, and constantly sways their findings to their personal whims or financial backings?

I also have no desire to confuse folks. Why would I? Why would I go to all the trouble of interviewing, answering the hundreds of messages I get weekly, just so I could stroke my ego on a forum when I could do so without all these efforts? Your attacks against me fall a bit short.

Once per second is more than finely grained enough. That's likely why it was chosen.

Are you seriously asking why we or rabbits align to their gravitational field? Or are you asking why changes in this would be noticeable in a study which was specifically designed to measure these changes?

Once per second is more than finely grained enough. That's likely why it was chosen.

It changes once per second. As opposed to not changing at all, your entire life. Do you really not understand the difference here?

How on earth is your body supposed to distinguish between the acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to centrifugal force anyway? It's not like your inner ear has some magical ability to determine the source of every acceleration you feel. It feels the combined acceleration due to gravity and the centrifugal force. If that combined acceleration changes, then it can detect that change per the study that you so helpfully linked.

Are you seriously asking why we or rabbits align to their gravitational field? Or are you asking why changes in this would be noticeable in a study which was specifically designed to measure these changes?

Same argument applies here. We (and the rabbit) feel the combined force of gravity, centrifugal force, and any other constant force that we feel. The direction of that combined force is interpreted as "down".

So after days of work, we realize that the follow earlier claims by globularists here on which they base their beliefs are not true:

We don't feel acceleration because the earth is 'enclosed.'
We don't feel acceleration because all of the earth is being accelerated.
Centrifugal force is normal to the surface of the earth.

Yes, some people misinterpreted your arguments. I don't blame them, as some of your arguments were NOT expressed clearly.
Yes, some people gave a slightly incorrect rebuttals to your arguments. Boo hoo. Corrections were made.

When we are asked what evidence has led us to our conclusions, I hope you now realize the hypocrisy. Half of the answers given to my evidences originally were blatantly incorrect thus turning the tables - What legitimate evidence has led you to your beliefs in a globe?!

There is an entire thread dedicated to this question. A rather massive pile of evidence has accumulated there. The point of this thread was for flat earthers to provide their evidence. Most of which has been thoroughly debunked, including your centrifugal force arguments.

I think to accept any evidence of a flat earth as a reality, one must realize the motivations for keeping such knowledge a secret. Without that thought in mind, any evidence of a flat Earth appears to be merely the sum of paranoia or an anarchist. Why would something like this be kept a secret? Perhaps that is what you should be searching for, instead of rustling through endless bags of "evidence".

I have absolutely no fear of peer review. As we know, nobody does because its a joke. You can literally generate nonsense mathematical papers with SciGen and get them published as has been done in the past. Taking any part in organized academia, as it is, fits the definition for what I consider a morally reprehensible activity. Why would I show my support and use of a system that almost always gives us the wrong answers, gets funded far more than they should for their activities, and constantly sways their findings to their personal whims or financial backings?

If the flat earth had even the slightest evidence supporting it, the universities would be on it within hours or days. I was not even talking about peer review, I do not even know what "peer review" is.
I rather suggest publishing a accurate, in detail work about your flat earth theory. If it's good enough, it will get published in scientific magazine. Universities will notice you. Within shortest time the flat earth would replace our current globe earth.

IF you had any evidence and IF your model would work. Since you do not have evidence and it does not work, you're damned to wander around the internet.

I also have no desire to confuse folks. Why would I? Why would I go to all the trouble of interviewing, answering the hundreds of messages I get weekly, just so I could stroke my ego on a forum when I could do so without all these efforts? Your attacks against me fall a bit short.

Without the confusion, you're flat earth would simply not work. I have asked you multiple times to respond to my "astounding easy to disprove flat earth" thread, yet you have not responded.

Are you seriously asking why we or rabbits align to their gravitational field? Or are you asking why changes in this would be noticeable in a study which was specifically designed to measure these changes?

I have trouble understanding the point of your study. I do not understand how it would be related to a 0.1 degree change in the attack angle of the gravitational force.
To improve my understanding, I've searched the paper online but did not find it. I suggest that you provide a link so we both have the same knowledge.
All I have found is "THE THRESHOLD OF ANGULAR ACCELERATION" which covered a different subject that stands in no relation with your claim.

I think to accept any evidence of a flat earth as a reality, one must realize the motivations for keeping such knowledge a secret. Without that thought in mind, any evidence of a flat Earth appears to be merely the sum of paranoia or an anarchist. Why would something like this be kept a secret? Perhaps that is what you should be searching for, instead of rustling through endless bags of "evidence".

So you being with the assumption that there is a conspiracy? Why? Why do you think there is a conspiracy? Do you have proof of that?

we can't open the eyes of the blind !

we can't open the eyes of the blind !

None are so blind as those who do not want to see. And then show pictures of irrelevant stuff.

So after days of work, we realize that the follow earlier claims by globularists here on which they base their beliefs are not true:

We don't feel acceleration because the earth is 'enclosed.'
We don't feel acceleration because all of the earth is being accelerated.
Centrifugal force is normal to the surface of the earth.

When we are asked what evidence has led us to our conclusions, I hope you now realize the hypocrisy. Half of the answers given to my evidences originally were blatantly incorrect thus turning the tables - What legitimate evidence has led you to your beliefs in a globe?!


Tests have been down in the field of pyschology related to otolith function that seems to state otherwise with sustained accelerations to show the threshold is ~ 9cm/s/s +- 4 cm/s/s. These are for horizontal movements, but the point still holds. We can expect it to be slightly higher for vertical movements.  http://bmcearnosethroatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6815-5-5

We see the threshold found by Ter Braak in 1939 studying rabbits ocular deviations photographically to be  0-1 deg / s /s.  As rabbits, like us, align ourselves with gravity this supposed 0.1 deg difference, as previously claimed, would be noticeable in this study of photographing rabbits eyes. We align ourselves with gravity. So the 0.1^o would cause occular havok as well as havok on our otolith system. It would also affect things like our sense of how 'stable' objects are. Furthermore there are a wide range of biological processes that would be affected by this 0.1 'unnoticeable' change in angle. One affect is on the degradation and movements of microfeatures in biology such as cilia which have a wide range of consequences.

To the points at hand, Willhem Mulder in his 1908 PhD thesis shows us that the opposite of what you claim is true, and even today the Mulder product is widely cited. Simply stated, the threshold is reached quicker if the required acceleration is going to be higher. When we moved to the other area on earth our body would need time to adjust. This is also similar to the case of having on 'upside down' glasses and having your ocular input appear to be reversed after removing them.

We also get to talk about the supposed rotation about the sun next, and then in our galaxy! However, I'm willing to put this entire point aside and move on to another list. I'll post it soon as I have time.

So, you are trying to convince more people by using the fact
that someone said "normal to surface"
instead of saying "normal to axis"?

~~~~~

You are willing to put this entire point aside,
because talking of revolving around Sun would bring
paralax due to Earth's orbit size into view.

And would bring night sky changes from one season to another.

More people would get to hear (and then google by themselves)
about Summer Triangle and about Winter Hexagon,
what they are, and why they "replace each other" in July and January nights.

I have absolutely no fear of peer review. As we know, nobody does because its a joke.

If it were a joke, basically every modern discovery in every singe direction would be a joke as well.

Claiming it is a joke is a very rude statement.

You can literally generate nonsense mathematical papers with SciGen and get them published as has been done in the past.

To publish the paper, someone has to read it multiple times. I find it hard to beliefe that randomly generated set of symbols can be accepted by a rigorious reviewing process.

Why would I show my support and use of a system that almost always gives us the wrong answers

If that was the case, I'd see erratum at every single issue of any journal. But that is not the case.

gets funded far more than they should for their activities,

Gets funded because this is a way to promote science and to allow actual sciencific research. You can get funds to your own research programs and improve your FE research.

Quote from: John Davis on August 31, 2016, 12:47:33 PM

I have absolutely no fear of peer review. As we know, nobody does because its a joke.

If it were a joke, basically every modern discovery in every singe direction would be a joke as well.

Claiming it is a joke is a very rude statement.

Quote from: John Davis on August 31, 2016, 12:47:33 PM

You can literally generate nonsense mathematical papers with SciGen and get them published as has been done in the past.

To publish the paper, someone has to read it multiple times. I find it hard to beliefe that randomly generated set of symbols can be accepted by a rigorious reviewing process.

Well, let me introduce you to the Orthodoxy:
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-science-publisher-gibberish-papers.html
http://www.nature.com/news/faked-peer-reviews-prompt-64-retractions-1.18202
http://gizmodo.com/over-120-science-journal-papers-pulled-for-being-total-1534110496
https://www.enago.com/academy/fake-research-papers-published-retracted/

Modern academia is rotten to the core. Why endow the system with false legitimacy by working within such a framework?