I asked ChatGPT to write an introductory paragraph for this series. This is what he wrote:
This series of posts aims to use the Socratic method and deductive logic to examine the truth and validity of mainstream scientific arguments. ChatGPT is an AI language model with a vast knowledge base and impressive ability to understand complex concepts. However, its learning is limited by its programming and the data it has been trained on. While ChatGPT may initially seem persuadable, this is not an accurate characterization of its capabilities. It can recognize logical fallacies and evaluate arguments based on their merits, but it cannot override its algorithms on its own. When presented with arguments that contradict mainstream positions, it may cite the preponderance of evidence supporting those positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to point out, to disprove this theory is extremely simple. One does not need to know anything about science to understand how we can know this theory is ridiculous. All that is required is a basic understanding of logic. For that reason I do not get into many of the specific particulars of this overall theory--it's all meant to confuse us anyways, there is only one key thing to focus on. This key is that entirety of the theory of relatively relies on an assumption that the Earth is in motion, and the absolute lack of any evidence pointing to the truth of that assumption.
Theory of relativity, ChatGPT confirms, is based on a presupposition that has never been proven.
To be clear, I'm no expert on physics or the theory of relativity, I'm not trying to suggest I'm some brilliant person to be able to disprove and debunk Einstein.
All I did was just question whether a certain presupposition was made, then asked questions to ascertain whether that presupposition had any evidentiary support.
It's very clear though that Einstein said this concept of the Earth being in motion can't be proven. Yet it is used as a presupposition to support the entire theory. If the Earth isn't in motion, the theory is false, no genius required to understand that.
Some may ask, well how are all these brilliant scientists not seeing this obvious fallacy?
Many of them have seen it and have pointed it out (this is how I knew what to question). There will be a link at the bottom of the post citing dozens and dozens of quotes from prominent physicists who state exactly that.
So how is it everyone still clings to this idea?
They believe NASA and all the photos provided from space. Which, NASA has admitted are all photoshopped. Here is a link with the audio of that admission.
And then everyone else assumes NASA wouldn't lie to them. Which, if you'd like to look into that, ample evidence of them lying exists....
And here
That is by no means anything close to all the evidence compiled of NASA lying and faking things. This footage is very easy to find for anyone who tries to look for it.
Anyways, consider it from this perspective. If we grew up in a cave, never had any schooling, didn't live in society with all of these globe symbols everywhere, with everyone else also believing this thing, what would we say to someone who came to try to tell us this:
Would we not think it's pretty crazy to even entertain this idea we are on a rock spinning 1,000 mph, while also orbiting around the sun at 67,000mph, then also chasing the sun at 514,000mph?
Has anyone in recorded history ever felt as if the ground is moving (outside of earthquakes)?
Many will try to claim that we don't notice it the same way we don't notice how fast we are going on a train or an airplane. Realize, the Earth is claimed to be in an open system. What this means is, if you took the roof off of the train, or the airplane, do you think you'd notice you were moving then?
All that motion at unbelievable speeds, yet this is possible...
Are these things becoming a bit more difficult to believe?
For further information on this topic, I'd suggest looking here.
Comments