If you look at the major developments in physics over the last 115 years, there is entirely indication and precedent that the fraudulent flat Earth theory basis of climate alarm and its fake simulacral version of the greenhouse will be successful in establishing itself as core and unquestionable theory going forward from here.
There is a history. It begins with Einstein’s version of relativity theory which he modified from what Lorentz & Fitzgerald & Minkowski and others had already been developing. When Einstein published that all reference frames could be considered equal and equivalent, hardly any scientists today realize that this was met with a lot of skepticism and debunking letters by other scientists at the time familiar with such subject matter.
Einstein’s reinterpretation, or recasting, of relativity theory was the first to establish the cognitively-dissonant concept that a physical variable or physical outcome could be two different things at once. That is, one observer could make one claim about another, but the second observer could make the same claim about the first observer and deny that the first observer’s conclusions were actually physically applying to the second observer. This is of course all about the Twin Paradox, and if you read the Wiki for that paradox, just as with Schrodinger’s Cat paradox mentioned in a previous post, science is still to this day just as confused as ever as to how to interpret it.
You see, scientists do not understand that if a self-generating paradox is found within a theory, that this therefore indicates a fundamental problem in whatever sub-components of the theory or the theory itself which generated the paradox. I once mentioned to my thesis supervisor during my Master’s degree that if a paradox is found in a theory, that it must indicate a problem because actual physical paradoxes do not exist in reality. We have never actually ever found reality doing something observably paradoxical, such as 1 + 1 = 3, and the paradoxes we have are in conceptual theory and are in empirical domains which we have never actually experienced, and physical paradoxes whether experienced or not in any case would have to reduce to statements that 1 + 1 isn’t always equal to two. Well, the thesis supervisor found this to be quite a surprising position to take, and had apparently never thought of a paradox in this way.
As I have explained, scientists have been conditioned, since Einstein, to accept cognitive dissonance, i.e. paradox, as the basis of their thinking and of their ego & persona identity in being a scientist.
To finish the point about Einstein, he simply made the constancy of the speed of light an axiom, an assumption. This seems all well and good to scientists, for some reason. For some reason, they find this axiom sufficient. Scientists seem to not care about explaining why the speed of light should be a constant in the first place, and what pre-existing logical and self-explanatory conditions of sufficient reason must be present in order to arrive at that result. Isn’t that such a strange thing to over look, or not care about? Why would you just accept an axiom, and never wonder about what sufficient reason there is for the axiom to exist in the first place? The work of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and Michelson & Morley, etc., was heading directly to that question, but all work in that direction was halted by Einstein and then by the media circus manufactured around his personality. Wouldn’t you like to know why the speed of light is constant to all observers? Scientists don’t.
It is subsequently strange that Einstein rejected the observer-relativism of Copenhagen quantum mechanics when that result was really just an extension and finalization of his own observer-relativism in relativity theory.
You know it should have never been called relativity theory because it has just made emotionally vulnerable stupid people make an idiotic extrapolation to absolute moral and intellectual and social relativism…in the same way that they have taken the concept of “equality before the law” and stupidly extrapolated this to mean “everyone is equal”. Everyone is NOT equal, which is why we need equality before the law…
In any case, it should have been called “constancy of light theory”, or “absolute light theory” or something else.
So we have the example of Einstein creating paradoxes which to this day confuses scientists yet they accept it as gospel truth, and we have the example of Copenhagen quantum mechanics with its paradoxes of exploded/unexploded nuclear bombs which scientists likewise accept as gospel truth.
Modern scientists accept paradoxes as physical reality. And this, even though said paradoxes have never actually been experimentally confirmed, nor are they possible to experimentally confirm. That’s a pretty amazing achievement in mental gymnastics! Or should we call it mental circustry…
And so what position is science in to reject flat Earth theory? It is obviously, and quite by establishment precedent, in no position whatsoever at all to reject flat Earth theory. In my book I pointed out how the flat Earth mathematics of climate alarm’s greenhouse effect directly results in an equation solution where 1 = 2…a pure mathematical logical paradox. I have learned a lot in these past few months, and I was clearly naive to think that a paradox such as this would actually finally matter to scientists.
How could it matter though? It never could have. The entire basis of their thinking has become predicated upon paradox, on accepting paradox at the and as the very basis of existence itself.
Clearly modern science is in no position to reject the paradox of flat Earth theory, or 1 = 2, or dead-alive cats and exploded-unexploded bombs, etc.
And so the conclusion is that, just as in these previous examples where while there were many people writing about the clear logical and physical problems with the relevant theories, that these obviously flawed and empirically unconfirmed paradoxical theories nonetheless became standard accepted pedagogy and science was quite happy to continue on this way without ever questioning itself, flat Earth as the basis of climate theory and the political Left’s mission to scatter the productivity of the state into the stratosphere by fighting the weather will likely entirely be successful:
How will we re-do 115 years of scientific history? What political/economic/cultural/societal/geological/astronomical conditions will have to become present in order that a re-do of 115 years of scientific pedagogy and research and development and mathematical methods could then manifest?