How this debate typically goes is:

1. We live on this thing we call earth
2. Some people present what they believe to be the proper model depicting and explaining what’s going on in regard to earth and the solar system
3. Other people demonstrate there are big problems with that model scientifically speaking and that it is largely based off unjustifiable assumptions
4. Globular earth model guys yell “show us your model then!”

And this goes no where. I’ll probably just know the truth when I die at this point 😅

It’s not nihilism it’s critique. Nihilism implies I think there’s no way we could ever know anything, ever.

It’s very simple. Some people claim they have an indubitably true model of the earth and solar system, some people have critiqued it and the dictates of its proponents, and those people just get mad and call them names.

When, for example, kids are taught that there is an iron and molten electromagnetic generating core in the center of the earth, that is never clarified as a hypothesis. It’s not something that has been proven by any means.

I would tell my kids and any one else such if I was asked about it.

Empirically derived knowledge is completely valid. It’s natural to how we are designed.

But, all empirical data requires some level of interpretation and filtering, etc.

Let’s take Foucault’s pendulum experiment. It’s claimed that this demonstrates that the earth rotates on an axis of sorts, but I don’t agree with that conclusion wholesale (it’s arbitrary imo). It’s a claim that would rely on the conclusion being the only possible explanation for the phenomenon, which is not demonstrated at all.

It’s actually an absurd logical leap on its face.

I would say the main issues are the fundamentals that it is built upon, that I can recall. 1. Gravity as theorized by Newton 2. The problem of pressurized gaseous atmosphere without a container (which is directly related to gravity) Any pillars of the model built upon thereof will have critical justification issues. I had a short post about this to some extent a while back on instagram where the caption was: Preface: I understand we are talking about theories of physics, so we aren’t proving or disproving anything here. And there are multiple theories of gravity that more or… Read more »

A better example I’ve thought about previously as opposed to the feather and bowling ball is the actions of a helium balloon.

The problem I see is that somehow, gravity on earth is strong enough to create a pressured atmosphere of gases without a physical container surround it, but somehow fails to attract the helium balloon onto earth, which simply travels upwards?

Now, it’s already admitted in mainstream academia that Newton’s original theory of gravity being a force consequent of matter is insufficient in many respects. To my knowledge that is.

Also, upon cursory research, they don’t simply put those items in a vacuum without air particles. They also create a gravitational field for the purposes of the experiment, according to an article I just looked at here:

https://www.science.org/content/article/strictest-test-yet-general-relativity-confirms-feathers-and-bowling-balls-really-do

Nothing I’m doing here involves “conspiracy theorizing” or whatever. I’m talking about the actual theories and I will often give direct examples about what I’m talking about (unlike most of the people I’ve talked to).

When I would critique Dave the Professor, I would give the specific examples of where he was wrong and explain the point.

Same thing I’m doing here.

There’s no need for the theory of gravity in that context. I see a balloon float in the air contrary to things that fall typically, we eventually understand it’s a physical relation based on density. Okay. That is equally as explanatory for why things fall as well.

So, again, gravity is null.

What does this have to do with proving gravity is a force generated inherent to matter? It doesn’t. At all.