In my recent book, I made a big point about flat Earth theory being the jewel of modern physics, and how flat Earth theory has been presented as the most important political contribution which science has ever made for modern man via climate alarmism.
Recall that the founding diagrams of alarmism from which they create their alternative and fake version of the greenhouse effect are as shown in the next figures below:
You will note, with half a brain, that those figures represent the Earth as flat and with 342.5 W/m² as the solar input (which after other factors applied comes out to -18°C as heating potential).
Perhaps a less-technical looking diagram would help simplify things for you?
The above diagram is modern physics. The above diagram is quite explicitly what modern physics thinks of the Earth and the Sun via its climate alarmism. The above diagram is what myriad scientists are publishing scientific and physics papers about in professional academic journals, what they’re getting paid to teach children, what they’re getting paid to research, and what they’re presenting as a basis for the most important political action which they have ever recommended to society. The above diagram is the basis of the three before it, the basis of climate physics and climate alarm as taught the most expensive Ivy League universities in the world.
Since I cannot resist philosophical and logical paradoxes, I must ask you: What is the distance of climate alarmism’s and modern physics’ flat Earth away from the Sun? The Earth of the above 4 figures..what is its distance from the Sun?
We can calculate it from those diagram’s numbers: they list the solar input as 342.5 W/m². Since we know the effective temperature of the Sun’s photosphere (5778K) and we also know the Sun’s radius (6.96 x 10^8m), then we can calculate the distance (d) at which the Sun’s light produces a flux (F) of 342.5 W/m² given the inverse square law. The equation is as thus:
F = σT4 * RSun2 / (RSun + d)2
Solving for d:
d = (σT4 * RSun2 / F)1/2 – RSun
and then inserting the necessary terms, you find
d = 298272585139 meters.
Given that the standard astronomical unit, or mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, is 1.496×1011 meters, then this means that the Earth of modern physics, the Earth of modern physics’ climate alarm, the Earth of Ivy League university, the Earth of the modern academic peer-review system is:
298272585139 / 1.496×1011 = 2 times distant from the Sun than the Earth is.
And so in modern physics, the distance that the Earth is from the Sun is twice the distance of the Earth from the Sun.
How does that strike you?
The other major portion of my book was in explaining how it is possible for science to make a mistake like this. The truth is that science can make a mistake like this because science is chalk full of really stupid, incoherent, meaningless, and actually un-understandable mistakes that it actually holds as its basis and its most celebrated theories! That’s the truth of science.
Scientists couldn’t recognize a mistake or an incoherent idea if the Earth was presented as flat to their face… Oh, wait!!
Modern physics and modern scientists are actually predicated upon believing in incoherent and meaningless ideas which are obvious mistakes. To be a modern scientist, you must reject the use of reason and instead accept the sensation of cognitive dissonance as the standard for truth and that which must not be questioned. The cognitive dissonance of the modern science practitioner is thus actually a form of faith, because they actively choose the cognitively dissonant as the standard for truth and as that which must not be questioned!
Scientists think that the peer-review system and process will weed out mistakes….and yet, flat Earth as its most important political contribution to modern man is fully peer-reviewed and accepted science. And the other incoherent bases of modern science are likewise peer-reviewed.
And so that’s how science can make this mistake. It can make this mistake with consummate ease. This is precisely the type of mistake one would expect science to make once one understands the cognitively dissonant psychological requirement of being a modern scientist.
It’s time for a new science, for a rationalist science which is actually informed by the intellectual tradition and which rationally solves seemingly incoherent problems instead of accepting that plainly irrational, illogical, and paradoxical things form the basis of existence.