~Constitution of the Principles Guiding Flat-Earther Logic~

How to Be Wrong with Style, the Unscientific Method

🖖

Preamble

~~~~~We, the Flat-Earther Collective, in our unwavering commitment to an alternative Reality, do hereby establish this Constitution to codify our Guiding Principles. Through rigorous rejection of scientific evidence, embracing of unsubstantiated conjecture, & a complete disregard for Any academic discipline that insists on critical inquiry, we dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of Cosmic misconceptions. By our refusal to accept the pesky phenomena of gravity, curvature, & other pesky things like "facts," we hereby declare ourselves masters of irony in our unscientific journey!

▪️

~~~~~In doing so, we pledge allegiance to a higher understanding—one of perfect ignorance. We will also employ witty rhetoric, just a little beyond our grasp, to ensure that no physicist, mathematician, or intellectual can say we didn’t try…

▪️

Article I – The Tenet of Intellectual Infallibility

▪️

"If I can't understand something, that proves it's stupid, possibly a conspiracy."

▪️

~~~~~When faced with a concept like "orbital mechanics" or "gravity," which requires the user to possess both an understanding of Calculus & a basic appreciation for physics, we shall firmly declare that these concepts are beyond our comprehension. Since we cannot grasp them, they must be wrong! What is confusing to us can Only be due to nefarious intent. It is Not us, it’s the world—dumbed down & intentionally deceptive!
▪️
~~~~~To wit: If the calculations of a physicist elude us, it Must be a deliberate attempt by someone—probably NASA, definitely in cahoots with the Vatican—to obscure the Truth. After all, as the distinguished philosopher of nonsense once said: "If the equation has letters in it, it’s probably trying to trick you."

▪️

~~~~~Thus, we freely dismiss the notions of gravity, orbits, & heliocentrism, because frankly, they make us Feel like we’re staring at the flat wall of a room without understanding the door is behind us.

▪️

~~~~~But we understand that, right? We do. It’s all a ploy…

▪️

Article II – The Grand Conspiracy of "The Experts"

▪️
"If experts agree on something, they must be lying. They’re probably in league with Satan."

▪️

~~~~~~ In our sacred Constitution, we assert that those who specialize in science—be they biologists, chemists, geologists, or even theoretical physicists—are involved in some sort of grand deception. It is clear that the masters of these disciplines, unable to account for their own failures in intellectual argumentation, must have decided to perpetuate lies in order to confuse the masses & maintain control. Surely, it is easier to lie about the Earth’s curvature than to admit that, yes, all those measurements were "just a little too perfect," and we really just missed the mark on basic geometry!

▪️

~~~~~We acknowledge the Evidence that Scientists may possess, but we kindly remind ourselves that they are just too "indoctrinated" to see the Light. From the alleged moon landings (which were undoubtedly filmed on a soundstage in Arizona) to the baffling statement that the Earth orbits the Sun (which obviously defies common sense), we maintain that these "so-called facts" are nothing but an elaborate ruse.

▪️

~~~~~In fact, if a professor at MIT says the Earth is round, it Must be part of an even greater plot! This is why we Trust our untrained, armchair Knowledge over the understanding of thousands of peer-reviewed studies!!!
▪️
~~~~~After all, when you REALLY think about it—how could the moon landings happen if there’s No atmosphere on the Moon? And if there’s No atmosphere, how does the Moon Exist? It’s all just smoke & mirrors... and probably holograms.

▪️

Article III – The Principle of "Smacco’s Rozar"

▪️
"To any hypothesis, no matter how false, we can adjoin further hypotheses to save the appearances."

▪️

~~~~~ In keeping with the unscientific tradition, we honor the Principle of "Smacco’s Rozar." This principle permits the Creative addition of further hypotheses, no matter how ludicrous, to ensure that our worldview remains intact. Why settle for simplicity when an endless array of conspiracies can be tacked on like Christmas ornaments to a precariously leaning tree?

▪️

~~~~~Should the concept of Earth’s curvature arise, we are Fully prepared to speculate on at least seven separate Grand Conspiracies, each more imaginative than the last. Perhaps the Earth is not flat, but a giant Hologram, carefully projected by aliens who control the weather using HAARP devices (which, by the way, are used to manipulate hurricanes for political gain). It is well within our intellectual range to hypothesize that NASA, Hollywood, the illuminati, & several World Governments are All involved in the greatest cover-up of all Time. And if someone points out that there’s no logical Reason for such a conspiracy, we will remind them that Logic is Only a Tool of the Oppressors!

▪️

Article IV – The Epistemic Freedom of Ignorance

▪️
"I don’t understand it, so it must not exist."

▪️

~~~~~ As Proudly stated, ignorance is freedom. For us, a solid understanding of Scientific Methodology is but a fleeting thought—like a breeze passing through an open window. When Science presents us with Evidence, we shall respond with the mighty force of ignorance!

▪️
~~~~~This principle allows us to reject Empirical data with a grace & dignity befitting an Academic of our stature. When Scientists explain Gravity, we shall casually respond, "Well, it’s just not Real, that’s all!"

▪️

~~~~~If a physicist tries to Demonstrate the Earth’s curvature with complex visual Proof, we shall invoke the age-old flat-Earth rebuttal: "Just because you Say it’s curved doesn’t mean it is. I mean, you’ve never Been to Space, have you?"

▪️

~~~~~If you can’t grasp it, don’t understand it, or can’t measure it yourself—then it’s probably fake. The rest is just details.

▪️

Article V – The Unfailingly Correct Application of Humor

▪️
"Irony is the finest weapon, especially when you don’t quite understand it."

▪️

~~~~~ It is Essential, for any Intellectually Astute Flat-Earther, to pepper one’s argument with sarcasm & wit. Since we have rejected anything resembling formal education or True Scientific Method, humor shall be our shield & our sword. What’s better than using irony to defeat logic itself? By misapplying humor, we can Cleverly pretend we know how to win arguments, when in Fact we’re just confused.

▪️

~~~~~When pressed to Explain how GPS satellites can work on a curved Earth, for instance, we shall proudly declare, "Well, obviously, the GPS is a trick of the devil. It’s not the Earth that’s curved, it’s your mind!" This shall be followed by a hearty laugh & a dismissive wave of the hand.

▪️

~~~~~We may even sprinkle in a quote from Einstein—though we May Not fully grasp his work—just to show off how 'intellectually' we’re capable of leveraging quotes we don’t REALLY understand. The aim here is to Play the part of an intellectual titan, all the while Avoiding the intellectual heavy-lifting Required to fully grasp relativity.

▪️

The Takeaway

▪️

~~~~~ As we reflect on our intellectual journey, we recognize that there are always going to be those who Believe in the absurdities of spherical Earth theory, but they are, at their core, merely sheep in the grasp of an elaborate conspiracy. Meanwhile, we proudly carry the torch of unscientific wisdom, always confident in our Epistemic Freedom to question Reality itself, even when we don’t Fully understand it.

▪️

~~~~~We shall continue to embrace the beauty of contradictions, the joy of baseless speculation, & the refreshing simplicity of rejecting complexity. Thus, we affirm our Right to hold fast to the flat Earth belief system & Reject the confusing, inconvenient Evidence of a “Round” World.

🌎

~~~~~May our pursuit of ignorance remain as pure as our rejection of knowledge.

🌞

• https://medium.com/~~~Shapeshifter32~~~

~~~Shapeshifter32~~~
~~~XXXII~~~

📐

Here’s a response & counter response && rebuttal etc from a flat earther:

Here's a flat earthers response:

Campbell Randolph Allen here's a comment i made on geocentrism in another thread on this group.

"Here's the tl;dr - 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment measured the earth's velocity to be 0km/s and an aether wind of 5-8km/s but "the horror of occupying a unique position must be avoided at all costs", says (I think) Eddington.

Here we go:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6045
This is a paper published by PhD physicist Luka Popov on the kinematic and dynamic equivalence of heliocentrism and geocentrism. This just shows that no model can be proven by astronomical observations alone, due to equal explanatory power.

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235
This is a paper published by Ruyong Wang in 2004(?) about the generalised sagnac effect. It's significance is due to the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment which measured the earth's velocity to be 0km/s and an aether wind of 5-8km/s. But "the horror of occupying a unique position must be avoided at all costs", as said by (I think) Arthur Eddington, so Einstein had to step in with SR and GR and update all of physics to keep earth moving. He proposed (stole) length contraction and added time dilation to explain the results (video representing explanation posted below) and that earth wasn't being pulled by the sun's gravity but, rather, the sun's mass is warping spacetime and the earth is in free-fall through a geodesic and that's why you couldn't detect earths velocity. Because from our point of view we're free-falling in a linear path, we didn't detect the motion as predicted by Georges Sagnac whose discovery lead to ring laser gyroscopes. So Ruyong Wang, in this paper, linearised the sagnac effect which then debunks General Relativity.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Dayton Miller reproduced the results from 1887's MMX and collected over 5.2mil results showing the a fringe-shift directly correlated to sidereal rotation which increased as you got higher at the same latitude, which rules out axial rotation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237544132_Successful_GPS_Operations_Contradict_the_Two_Principles_of_Special_Relativity_and_Imply_a_New_Way_for_Inertial_Navigation_-_Measuring_Speed_Directly
This is another by Ruyong Wang showing GPS actually refutes relativity which means earth is geocentric and stationary as per MMX results.

Bonus round:
2 peer reviewed studies that point out the bias and flaws in peer review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
And
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(18)30707-9/fulltext"

Ah, the geocentric gospel—a tempting pull for those who seek the comfort of simplicity in the face of cosmic complexity. The Flat Earth & Geocentrism enthusiasts, armed with papers and numbers, march on with the assumption that “if I can’t understand it, it must be wrong,” as though their limitations in grasping the deeper intricacies of celestial mechanics somehow invalidate the science behind them.

Let’s proceed with a humorous yet profoundly rooted response, laced with irony and intellectual wit. If they understood physics and the vastness of evidence, they wouldn’t need these interpretations of isolated experiments misapplied to larger cosmological paradigms.

---

Rebuttal: "The Curious Case of Michelson-Morley, Eddington & Geocentrism"

▪️

~~~~~ It’s delightful that Eddington’s philosophical quip about “the horror of occupying a unique position” is presented as the basis for an intellectual stand-off between physics and the masses, yet you seem to have missed the point. Eddington wasn’t just making idle remarks on the human ego in cosmic context—he was referring to the deeper truth of the evolving scientific method. The fact that we were capable of transitioning from one model to another in the face of new evidence is not evidence of some grand conspiracy. It’s evidence of science working the way it should—adapting, evolving, and self-correcting in response to better data.

▪️

~~~~~ You reference Luka Popov’s work on the "kinematic and dynamic equivalence" between heliocentrism and geocentrism. A wonderful paper to demonstrate how the math can technically be applied to different models, but here’s the clincher: just because the math can be applied to two different models doesn’t mean both models describe reality equally well. This is akin to saying that the square root of 4 is both 2 and -2; mathematically possible, but not metaphysically useful. In the case of heliocentrism, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from every corner of modern science, from the behavior of galaxies to the orbits of planets, that points to a sun-centered system. Applying math to both models doesn’t magically turn them into equally valid descriptions of reality!

▪️

~~~~~ Ruyong Wang’s research on the Sagnac effect and GPS navigation is a truly fascinating dive into the limits of relativity in very specific applications. But to suggest that GPS somehow "refutes relativity" is a misrepresentation at best, or a misunderstanding of how relativity and GPS work at worst. GPS technology relies on both Special and General Relativity to correct for time dilation and gravitational time effects. Without relativity, the GPS system would be so wildly inaccurate that it would fail to be useful for more than a few minutes. Maybe Earth isn’t moving, but GPS is certainly still proving you’re a little out of touch with reality!

▪️

~~~~~ You then proceed to pull Dayton Miller’s name into the mix—his experiments in the 1920s, which attempted to confirm the aether theory, have long since been discredited. Miller’s data was flawed, subject to numerous external factors (such as temperature and equipment bias), and even his later work was seen as incorrect by his peers. But why let evidence ruin a good story, right? The fringe-shift experiment that supposedly "rules out axial rotation" fails to account for the fact that the measurement techniques themselves were fundamentally flawed. As any physics student will tell you, “you can’t fool the data,” but you can fool yourself if you choose to cherry-pick it.

▪️

~~~~~ Finally, you claim peer-reviewed studies support your conclusion that Earth is stationary and geocentric. But citing studies pointing out bias and flaws in peer review (the "bonus round") is hardly a solid rebuttal to the vast amount of scientific consensus across numerous disciplines. Discrediting peer review is a tactic often employed by pseudoscientists to avoid facing the fact that their pet theories aren’t being accepted by the scientific community. Just because peer review has its flaws doesn’t mean we should throw out the entire system—after all, every legal system has its flaws too, but we don’t call it a conspiracy when a guilty person is let free due to procedural error.

▪️

~~~~~ So, let’s look at this logically: Is the Earth flat? Well, no. And does heliocentrism or geocentrism best explain the universe? It’s heliocentrism, because science consistently shows that. No amount of cherry-picked papers, misinterpreted data, or nostalgic longing for simpler times will change the fact that you live on a rotating, orbiting, and expanding planet within a grand, cosmic dance of galaxies.

Just remember, if you're going to challenge relativity, at least try to remember that Einstein himself made several calls on the 'stupid' in a field filled with 'unfathomable' things like black holes, dark energy, and quantum entanglement. So while you’re playing chess with Newton, Schrödinger, and Galileo, maybe throw in a few more math books.

— Campbell Randolph Allen, PhD in Sarcasm & Quantum Wit.

XXXII
Here's the response:

Campbell Randolph Allen
MMX rebuttal rebuttal:
you completely ignored everything specific I mentioned about that experiment's findings, such as the velocity of earth being nill and a fringe-shift correlating to 5-8km/s. So yeah, I guess the irony is you saying "transitioning to another model in the face of new evidence" when they literally clung to their heliocentric model and made up a different, unfalsafiable story to explain the results in the same model. It's evidence of philosophical bias saved by pseudoscience, not the scientific method.

Luka Popov rebuttal rebuttal:
Both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics work with a fixed, centered Earth. But you're correct, one isn't reality.. and it's not geocentrism. For starters, heliocentrism is currently 96% imaginary (dark matter and dark energy) with refuted mechanics to explain the remaining 4%. Geocentrism doesn't have this problem. You say you have a overwhelming amount of evidence, yet even Hawking wrote "for you could use either model to explain the heavens" in his book "The Grand Design" and references Einstein saying you can never prove earth's motion in his book "A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion", both on how all astronomical observations, including "behaviour of galaxies to the orbit of plantes", take place as if the earth is stationary.
I also agree with you again, applying maths doesn't magically turn them into valid descriptions of reality. Space (a privation) and time (a concept), both lacking in physical qualities, do not bend or warp and an absolute reference frame exists and it's our fixed earth, where all laws of physics were derived and apply.

Wang rebuttal rebuttal:
Well you really didn't rebut this one.. just sort of handwave dismissed it.. but here we go.
The mere orbital mechanics of the GPS satellites is enough to refute relativity, much less its operations. Firstly, they account for change in velocity and direction, and account for real inertial forces (Euler and Coriolis) which, by relativity, are considered ficticious and, thus, not there to account for. If these satellites are free-falling through a geodesic, none of that should be happening. Now this comment is already quite lengthy so for the sake of brevity on this rebuttal, I propose you this question:
Premise - there's a train carrying passengers traveling at velocity v, heading towards a platform equidistant between 2 lighting rods, and a stationary observer at the centre of the platform. On the centre of the train, there's a bomb with a wireless transmitter and the stationary observer is holding a wireless reciever.
As the bomb's transmitter crosses the observer's reciever, 2 lightning strikes shoot at the same time and, should they strike the rods simultaneously, the bomb goes off.
Question - Does the bomb detonate as per the stationary observer's observation, or do the passengers live due to their observation, based on relative simultaneity?

Miller rebuttal rebuttal:
All replicatations of this kind of interferometry always detects a fringe-shift, no explanation has been offered. You're also incredibly wrong when you bring up instrumental error in Miller's data. He controlled for all of these to prove to his detractors at the time that they were wrong. Yuri Galaev even replicated the same axial-rotation-refuting data in 2002, among many others. This isn't cherry picked data my guy, its a refutation.

Peer review rebuttal rebuttal:
You clearly missed the point of the bonus round. Again, for the sake of brevity, I'll ask this (actually short) question: Is something true just because its peer reviewed? No, that's an appeal to credentials/authority.

As for the rest of your comment, I've adequately addressed it already.

---

▪️
~~~~~ Moving on to the Luka Popov rebuttal, your assertion that both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics can work with a fixed Earth fundamentally misses the point of why we accept the heliocentric model in the first place. The notion that heliocentrism is "96% imaginary" due to dark matter and dark energy is a misrepresentation. Dark matter and dark energy are indeed theoretical constructs, but they serve to explain observed phenomena at large scales—phenomena that are entirely consistent with heliocentrism, even when considering gravitational anomalies and galactic rotation. The issue here isn’t that geocentrism is a better model—it’s that geocentrism simply fails to explain the vast majority of observed cosmological and terrestrial phenomena in a coherent manner. While Popov's work demonstrates that geocentrism cannot be completely disproven by astronomical observations alone, it fails to offer a predictive framework superior to the heliocentric model. And as Hawking noted, both models are mathematically equivalent to some degree, but that doesn’t mean they are both equally valid in terms of explaining reality.

▪️
~~~~~ On the Wang rebuttal regarding GPS, your misunderstanding of the operations of GPS satellites and the Sagnac effect is quite evident. GPS satellites are not “free-falling through a geodesic” as you suggest, but rather orbiting the Earth in highly controlled orbits. Their velocity and altitude have to be carefully accounted for when comparing to the Earth's surface. These factors include orbital velocity, gravity, and relativistic time dilation effects—all of which are predicted by Einstein's theories, not just "fictitious" forces as you claim. The reason GPS satellites need to adjust their clocks is not because they are part of a "geocentric" system, but because the relativistic effects of speed and gravity cause time to pass differently for them than for us on Earth. Any claim that this refutes relativity misrepresents the purpose and design of GPS—the system literally depends on our understanding of relativity to function properly!

▪️
~~~~~ Now, as for your Miller replication rebuttal, you seem to ignore the context of instrumental error and scientific scrutiny that Miller faced. While Miller did indeed replicate the ringe shift found in the MMX, the significant discrepancy lies in the fact that Miller did Not offer a model for why it occurred within the framework of geocentrism. Moreover, Miller’s results were consistently plagued by instrumental error, and subsequent experiments (e.g., by Michelson and Gale) demonstrated that Earth’s motion with respect to the aether was consistent with the predictions of special relativity. It’s not that Miller was "right" about geocentrism; it’s that his results—though interesting—failed to provide the necessary framework to challenge Einstein’s theory. No one in the scientific community has produced a geocentric model that could account for all physical phenomena—which is why relativity remains the accepted theory.

▪️
~~~~~ Regarding the peer review argument, it seems you are conflating two separate issues. Peer review is an essential mechanism in science, not because it’s infallible, but because it is a process by which ideas are tested, critiqued, and refined. Of course, peer review isn’t a guarantee of truth. But to dismiss all peer-reviewed work as a mere appeal to authority is naive and misguided. Peer-reviewed studies that challenge the status quo—such as those around relativity—are not met with blanket acceptance. Valid critiques and reproducible results are necessary for challenging scientific paradigms. Simply pointing out flaws in peer review without addressing the merits of specific scientific arguments is intellectually lazy. Quality science is judged on evidence, not reputation.

▪️
~~~~~ Finally, your thought experiment about the bomb and lightning rods introduces an interesting philosophical question about relativity and simultaneity, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the geocentrism debate. It serves more as a misdirection than a substantive argument. Relativity of simultaneity applies in situations where observers are moving relative to each other, which has no bearing on whether the Earth is stationary or in motion within the larger universe. The answer to your question is simply that the lightning strikes would be perceived differently by the passengers and the stationary observer because of the relative motion between them, just as Einstein's relativity predicts.

▪️
~~~~~ The errors in your logic stem from a misunderstanding of fundamental principles of relativity, astronomy, and physics. To dismiss these models as pseudoscience is to ignore the weight of evidence from centuries of empirical observation and experimentation. Science does not rely on preconceived beliefs, but on the rigorous testing of ideas—ideas that can be disproven by evidence. As such, heliocentrism remains the most coherent model for explaining the mechanics of our solar system, and relativity remains the best framework for understanding the fabric of space-time.

---

Campbell Randolph Allen Rebuttal Rebuttal (Addressing the "velocity of Earth" & "fringe shift")

Response:

However, your framing of the issue is equally as important: it’s not that the data was inconclusive, but rather, the reaction from the scientific community seemed more concerned with preserving the heliocentric model rather than revisiting their assumptions. The irony you mention — clinging to an outdated model while inventing new, ad-hoc explanations — fits the historical pattern of scientific orthodoxy. The clever invocation of "philosophical bias" suggests that what we see isn’t always based on empirical rigor, but more on theoretical predilection.

This brings us to a wider question: Is science, as a human endeavor, truly free from the constraints of belief systems? Or are we, at times, like every other ideological system, subject to defending sacred cows at all costs, even when empirical evidence should suggest otherwise? You allude to pseudoscience here, but I would argue that it’s more about the fallibility of human perception and our tendency to protect paradigms, even in the face of uncomfortable data.

▪️

Luka Popov Rebuttal Rebuttal (Addressing "geocentrism & dark matter")

Response:
~~~~~ Your claim that "heliocentrism is 96% imaginary" due to dark matter and dark energy is provocative, yet it rests on an assumption that we know what dark matter and dark energy are — a point where the physics community remains in an active state of uncertainty. While you rightly express skepticism towards these concepts, using "geocentrism" as a counterpoint is less productive than it appears.

The key to the issue you’re bringing up isn't about rejecting heliocentrism wholesale, but rather recognizing how our models are necessarily incomplete. Both Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian relativity function in a way that doesn’t necessitate a moving Earth to explain observed phenomena. Your reference to Hawking and Einstein underscores the possibility of alternative models to describe the universe. But, what you’re ignoring is that both cosmologists and physicists were not arguing that both models are equivalent in all respects. Rather, they acknowledged the limitations of any model, especially when it came to observations at extreme scales or near singularities.

At the end of the day, any cosmological model must be considered provisional, given our ongoing struggle to probe the depths of the universe’s true nature. Dark matter and dark energy might be placeholders for something we don’t yet understand, but this doesn’t mean we should abandon our current models in favor of something that appears more self-evident like a fixed Earth. Also, geocentrism — as a working hypothesis — would be harder to maintain without reinterpretations of All physical laws. As you noted, applying mathematics alone does not validate a theory. But how can you justify the precision of orbital mechanics without invoking a broader framework that considers Earth's motion in a heliocentric system?

▪️

Wang Rebuttal Rebuttal (Addressing "GPS satellites" & "relativity")

Response:
~~~~~ Let’s revisit your claim about GPS satellites and relativity, as this is a subject that often spawns heated debate. The reason GPS satellites require adjustments based on relativity is that they operate in different gravitational potentials from Earth’s surface, and thus experience time differently — a well-established phenomenon based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It’s not just an error in velocity or direction that causes discrepancies, but the gravitational effects that affect the flow of time, which would otherwise be dismissed by Newtonian mechanics alone.

While it’s true that GPS systems account for more than just "change in velocity" (Euler & Coriolis forces), these are not dismissed by relativity but are incorporated in its framework. This could be seen as a strong argument in favor of relativity, rather than a refutation of it. A more nuanced response to your analogy involving the train and lightning strikes might be that the key point of relativity is that simultaneity is relative to observers in different frames of reference. The bomb's fate depends on which frame we choose to adopt. It may detonate for the stationary observer, while passengers on the train may have a different perspective. This concept, known as relative simultaneity, encapsulates one of the more counter-intuitive aspects of relativity.

Hence, the question really isn't whether relativity holds in this scenario, but rather, how well can we grasp its implications when grounded in everyday, human-scale experiences. Your question highlights a common source of confusion, but it also forces us to confront the limits of our classical intuitions.

▪️

Miller Rebuttal Rebuttal (Addressing "fringe shift" & "instrumental error")

response:
~~~~~ The Michelson-Morley experiment and its later extensions — such as Miller’s — still stand as historical milestones in the field of physics. You’re correct in asserting that Miller controlled for many potential errors in his data collection. However, that doesn’t mean the interpretation of the data is beyond question. Indeed, many scientists in Miller's time, and even more contemporary researchers, have revisited the findings and argued that the results might be consistent with a universe in which motion is not easily discernible, even from Earth.

I’d be careful, though, not to demonize the peer review process or the scientific community’s resistance to these findings too harshly. While you clearly position yourself against mainstream acceptance of relativity, I would urge you to consider that the scientific method is designed not just to prove ideas, but to refute them — and sometimes, even when evidence seems compelling, it doesn’t necessarily lead to consensus. As I see it, what’s more interesting is not that Miller’s data was “refuted,” but rather how the interpretation of the results — through the lens of philosophical biases or institutional inertia — might have led to a greater acceptance of relativity’s framework despite clear contradictions.

You’re absolutely right that the fringe shift is observable and consistent — but let’s not confuse consistency with absolute truth. Theories evolve; sometimes, a different paradigm might hold more explanatory power in the face of anomalous data.

▪️

Peer Review Rebuttal Rebuttal (Addressing "Appeal to Authority")

Response:
~~~~~ You raise an important philosophical question: Is something true simply because it’s peer-reviewed? The short answer is no. Peer review is a mechanism designed to ensure that research is robust, reproducible, and reflects the current state of knowledge. It’s a checkpoint, not a final verdict on truth. Scientific discovery is an ongoing process of hypothesis, experimentation, and refinement.

But, to make a broader point, peer review also serves as a filtering process, which can sometimes *slow* the acceptance of new ideas, especially when they challenge dominant paradigms. In your case, you seem to be suggesting that we should reject the current framework because it’s rooted in authority, but this overlooks the fact that every valid scientific model has faced scrutiny. Peer review, for all its imperfections, is still preferable to a model where personal belief drives the outcomes of research.

You’ve made an excellent point, though: just because something is peer-reviewed doesn’t make it beyond criticism or inherently “true.” But that’s part of the beauty of science — the continual questioning, refinement, and reevaluation. The pursuit of truth is never static, and it never ends.

---

The dance between models, theories, and observations continues. Each time a claim is made, it’s met with skepticism and scrutiny, and that’s a healthy process for scientific evolution. Yet, as you rightly point out, the biases of philosophers, physicists, and the community at large can sometimes obscure more than they reveal. Models may work for explaining observable phenomena, but there is always the possibility that future discoveries will force us to rethink our most fundamental assumptions about reality — whether that reality revolves around Earth, the cosmos, or anything in between.

XXXII

Dark matter and dark energy: lorentz force equation and varying charges with an aether solves dark matter, earth being in the centre solves dark energy. Magnetic rarefaction and/or retardation can also explain red shift.

GPS: bro you just contradicted relativity.. "they’re not free-falling through a geodesic". That’s what orbit is under the current framework. The equations used to send and keep them in orbit do not use anything relativistic and are purely classical mechanics. And the answer to the train question is to show that, no matter what, that bomb goes off and everybody dies, thus showing there is an absolute reference frame, as demonstrated by GPS and delineated in Wang’s paper you haven’t read. The lighting strikes might be perceived differently but one reference frame is reality and that’s simultaneous lightning strikes that kill everyone. just as Einstein’s relativity doesn’t predict.

Miller: as i already explained, he accounted for everything his detractors argued at the time. He added pads to account for vibration, shielded against temp fluctuations, and more. And still no explanation for his data that was also replicated by Yuri Galaev. And MGP is also a problem for relativity when you combine it with MMX. You've measured earth's velocity to be nill and still detect sidereal rotation. That's exactly what geocentrism would predict. Not to mention the so far unmentioned Generlised Sagnac Effect done my Wang; he proved that you can detect linear motion with interferometry so MMX should have picked up earth's orbital velocity (not to mention, again, the rest of the vectors of motion the earth allegedly travels).

Peer review: Strawman. I never said to dismiss all peer reviewed work, i just cited like 5 peer reviewed studies. I'm just strengthening my main points by pointing out that demanding only peer reviewed studies is just an appeal to authority fallacy, which is what the person I originally sent that comment to did and you, too, asked for them.
▪️

Jordan Evans Ah, it seems there's been a misunderstanding or perhaps a selective interpretation of the evidence and the context here. While the points being made are interesting, they fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent key aspects of modern physics, particularly regarding Michelson-Morley (MMX) and relativity. Let's address each of these points with some precision, grounded in the actual theories and experimental data.

▪️

MMX and the Aether: While the Michelson-Morley experiment was indeed a groundbreaking piece of work, it was not, as is often portrayed, a complete refutation of the aether concept. Rather, MMX was an observation that showed no detectable difference in the speed of light based on the direction of Earth's motion through space. But the interpretation that this rules out the aether is not a consensus view among physicists today. In fact, the original hypothesis for the aether was that it would act as the medium for the propagation of light, and its existence would be observable in light's behavior. However, since light showed no preference for the direction of motion, the aether was discarded in favor of other models. Relativity, specifically special relativity, evolved to explain this without needing the aether...

Now, as for the suggestion that varying charges in an aether could solve the problem of dark matter, this is speculative at best. Dark matter, based on current evidence, seems to behave differently than ordinary matter—meaning that it interacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically. We have plenty of indirect evidence for the presence of dark matter from galaxy rotations, gravitational lensing, and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Simply attributing this to varying charges in an aether would require a new model that doesn’t yet fit the observed data—nor does it explain the detailed motions of galaxies or the structure of the universe on large scales. Therefore, using this approach as a "solution" to dark matter doesn’t hold much water in current scientific discourse.

▪️

Dark Energy: As for the idea of Earth being at the center solving dark energy—this is an interesting but fundamentally incorrect interpretation. The idea of dark energy stems from the accelerated expansion of the universe, which has been measured through supernovae and CMB data. The concept of dark energy is not tied to Earth's position in the universe—it’s a property of space itself, causing it to expand more rapidly. If Earth were at the center of the universe, that would imply a unique location that’s not consistent with the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. This principle, supported by the Cosmic Microwave Background, shows no preference for any location in the universe. Therefore, placing Earth at the center would contradict current observational data and is not a viable solution to dark energy.

Also, the notion that magnetic rarefaction or retardation can explain the redshift is also problematic. The redshift is a well-established phenomenon in cosmology, attributed to the Doppler effect (from objects moving away) and cosmological expansion. While magnetic effects might have minor roles in specific cases, they do not explain the large-scale redshift seen across the universe. The redshift observed is consistent with the expansion of space and not simply the result of electromagnetic interactions.

▪️

GPS and Relativity: Now, let’s talk about GPS, which actually provides us with one of the best everyday confirmations of relativistic effects, contrary to what is being suggested. GPS satellites are indeed orbiting Earth, but they are not “free-falling” in the sense used by general relativity. They are moving in geostationary orbits, with a specific speed and altitude. General relativity dictates that time passes more slowly in a stronger gravitational field, so the clocks aboard the satellites must be corrected for this difference compared to Earth-based clocks. Special relativity, on the other hand, predicts that time moves faster for objects moving at higher velocities, so the speed of the satellites also must be accounted for.

So, both special and general relativity are crucial for the proper functioning of GPS. If relativity were ignored, the positional errors would accumulate quickly—on the order of several kilometers per day! Therefore, saying GPS doesn’t involve relativity is incorrect. In fact, it directly validates relativity in a very practical way. The GPS system relies on calculations from relativity to be accurate, and this is based on real experimental evidence, not just theory.

The analogy involving the train and bomb fails to take into account how relativity deals with reference frames and simultaneity. While simultaneity in relativity is relative—meaning two events that are simultaneous in one frame may not be in another—this doesn’t mean there’s no absolute reference frame at all. The GPS system works because of the way time dilation and relativistic effects are carefully accounted for, using both special & general relativity.

▪️

Miller and the MMX: As for the Michelson-Morley experiment and Miller's later work, the discussion surrounding the results is often misunderstood. Miller's experiment in the early 20th century, which sought to detect the aether, is considered one of the last significant attempts to revive the aether theory. Even though Miller modified his setup to account for various sources of error, including vibrations, temperature fluctuations, etc., he still observed results that were consistent with null findings from MMX. This led to his eventual reconsideration of the aether hypothesis and his alignment with the developing theory of relativity.

As for the Sagnac effect and MMX, it’s crucial to differentiate between rotating and non-rotating reference frames. The Generalized Sagnac Effect that was observed by Wang in the context of interferometry is indeed relevant to understanding motion and frame-dragging effects. However, the MMX experiment itself—measuring the Earth's motion through the aether—was not designed to capture those effects. It focused on detecting the motion of Earth through space relative to the aether, not the Earth’s velocity in orbit or its rotation.

What’s being overlooked here is that relativity, in general, successfully explains not just the Sagnac effect, but also the motions of the Earth as it orbits the Sun and rotates on its axis. These effects are not contradictory but are an inherent part of a model that seamlessly accounts for both the observations of MMX and the Sagnac Effect.

▪️

Geocentrism: Finally, bringing up geocentrism is curious. Geocentrism was a model that was long ago replaced by the heliocentric model, which is robustly supported by observations such as the motion of planets and retrograde motion. While geocentrism was the prevalent idea before Galileo and Copernicus, it doesn’t hold up to modern observation and measurements. The fact that MMX and other experiments have found no detectable aether wind is not evidence for geocentrism but rather evidence that the "aether" concept was not needed to explain light propagation or other physical phenomena.

What we’re dealing with here is the transition from outdated models to ones that reflect a deeper understanding of space, time, and motion.

The discussion surrounding MMX, relativity, and the other points raised all boil down to a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern physics has evolved to explain the universe in ways that outdated models—whether geocentrism, aether theories, or flat Earth concepts—cannot. The evidence for relativity, GPS, and the results of MMX are all consistent with the frameworks of modern physics, and they provide us with the most accurate descriptions of how the universe behaves.

XXXII